Final answer:
John Rawls' Difference Principle allows for unequal distribution of wealth if it benefits society's least well-off, potentially justifying higher CEO earnings. However, increasing income disparity without benefit to the least advantaged would be seen as unjust according to Rawlsian principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Rawls' theory has been widely discussed in terms of its implications for economic inequality and the compensation of CEOs compared to their employees. In response to the question, Rawls does not explicitly state that CEOs deserve to make more than their employees, but his Difference Principle allows for unequal distribution of wealth if it benefits the least well-off in society. This means that in a society organized by Rawls’ principles, a CEO could earn significantly more than an average worker if it's to everyone's advantage and also improves the situation of the least privileged.
Rawls' concept considers the necessity of positions in a well-ordered society. If a CEO's role is deemed crucial in the functioning of society and provides benefits that extend to the less fortunate, then that CEO's higher earnings could be justified under Rawls’ framework. This is in stark contrast with real-world scenarios where, frequently, CEOs' salaries skyrocket without a correlating benefit to the larger society or the least advantaged, which might be assessed as unjust according to Rawls' theory.
The growing income disparity, where CEOs earn multiples more than the average worker, challenges Rawlsian principles unless such disparities contribute positively to the well-being of the less advantaged. This concept encourages societal structures that are just and beneficial to all, especially those least privileged, which quite often does not align with the actual distributions of wealth we see in today's capitalist systems.