As I understand him, Rawls holds that, in a circumstance in which none of us knows who
Does Donald Trump's massive but apparently uneven tax cut meet the ethical requirements of the "difference principle" as John Rawls' formulated it in A Theory of Justice? I ask this question in hopes of increasing my understanding of both.
As I understand him, Rawls holds that, in a circumstance in which none of us knows who would benefit least or most, we would choose to live in a society which is doubly egalitarian.
It would be politically egalitarian in that it would guarantee each citizen as many rights (freedom of speech, for example) as he or she could exercise without violating anyone else's rights. It would be economically and socially egalitarian because it would allocate its primary resources equally unless an unequal distribution would improve the circumstances of those who would be least well off. I addition, everyone would have an equal opportunity to be among those who would be the most well off.
Here is my question: Is it true that the "Difference Principle" ethically justifies the largest possible advantage of the most well off even if it improves the circumstances of the least well off by the smallest possible amount?
According to his theory, then, would a tax cut which improves the fortunes of some by 99% be ethically justified even if it improves the fortunes of others by only 1%? Those who get a 1% cut would have no grounds for complaint because they would indeed be better off than they were.
This would seem to put an ethical stamp of approval on what the Trump tax cut does. Is this correct?