It is widely believed that Rawls’ maximin principle is well protected against criticism from the left – that is against criticism from those who support a more nearly equal distribution of goods than the maximin principle would yield. This belief is, I think largely the result of the conviction that it would be irrational to want a more nearly equal distribution when that entails lowering the position of those that are already worst off. It is thought that the only motivation for egalitarianism which will survive rational reflection is a concern for the welfare of those who are less than best off – most pressingly a concern for those who are worst off. If this were the case, then the egalitarian would indeed be committed to the maxmin principle. But is the only defensible motivation behind distributive egalitarianism a concern for the absolute level of welfare? Are relative levels of no more significance?
