Question ID:PT22 S1 Q17 Passage:Many people complain about corporations, but there are also those whose criticism goes further and who hold corporations morally to blame for many of the problems in Western society. Their criticism is not reserved solely for fraudulent or illegal business activities, but extends to the basic corporate practice of making decisions based on what will maximize profits without regard to whether such decisions will contribute to the public good. Others, mainly economists, have responded that this criticism is flawed because it inappropriately applies ethical principles to economic relationships.It is only by extension that we attribute the quality of morality to corporations, for corporations are not persons. Corporate responsibility is an aggregation of the responsibilities of those persons employed by the corporation when they act in and on behalf of the corporation. Some corporations are owner operated, but in many corporations and in most larger ones there is a syndicate of owners to whom the chief executive officer, or CEO, who runs the corporation is said to have a fiduciary obligation.The economists argue that a CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, except in charitable institutions, is the protection of their profits. CEOs are bound, as a condition of their employment, to seek a profit for the owners. But suppose a noncharitable organization is owner operated, or, for some other reason, its CEO is not obligated to maximize profits. The economists' view is that even if such a CEO's purpose is to look to the public good and nothing else, the CEO should still work to maximize profits, because that will turn out best for the public anyway.But the economists' position does not hold up under careful scrutiny. For one thing, although there are, no doubt, strong underlying dynamics in national and international economies that tend to make the pursuit of corporate interest contribute to the public good, there is no guarantee‚ either theoretically or in practice‚ that a given CEO will benefit the public by maximizing corporate profit. It is absurd to deny the possibility, say, of a paper mill legally maximizing its profits over a five-year period by decimating a forest for its wood or polluting a lake with its industrial waste. Furthermore, while obligations such as those of corporate CEOs to corporate owners are binding in a business or legal sense, they are not morally paramount. The CEO could make a case to the owners that certain profitable courses of action should not be taken because they are likely to detract from the public good. The economic consequences that may befall the CEO for doing so, such as penalty or dismissal, ultimately do not excuse the individual from the responsibility for acting morally. Stem:Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage? Correct Answer Choice:AChoice A:Although CEOs may be legally obligated to maximize their corporations' profits, this obligation does not free them from the moral responsibility of considering the implications of the corporations' actions for the public good. Choice B:Although morality is not easily ascribed to nonhuman entities, corporations can be said to have an obligation to act morally in the sense that they are made up of individuals who must act morally. Choice C:Although economists argue that maximizing a corporation's profits is likely to turn out best for the public, a CEO's true obligation is still to seek a profit for the corporation's owners. Choice D:Although some people criticize corporations for making unethical decisions, economists argue that such criticisms are unfounded because ethical considerations cannot be applied to economics. Choice E:Although critics of corporations argue that CEOs ought to consider the public good when making financial decisions, the results of such decisions in fact always benefit the public.