Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT108 S1 P3 Q19 Explanation

Morality of Corporations

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsNon-Author OpinionSociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

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 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 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 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 as penalty or dismissal, ultimately do not excuse the individual from the responsibility for acting morally.

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Topic

The author is jumping into a debate about whether corporate executives owe anything to the public, or only to the people who own the company.

Framework

Present Debate. There's the economists on one side and the author on the other. The author lays out the economists' view fairly, and then shows why it falls apart.

Main Point

The simpler version: economists say The author says,

P1: The setup

Critics blame corporations morally for things like pursuing profit at the expense of the public good. Economists push back: ethics doesn't belong here.

P2: A small clarification

Strictly speaking, corporations aren't people — their morality is just the morality of the people who run them. In bigger companies, the CEO has a fiduciary duty to the owners.

P3: The economists, in detail

The CEO's only job is to make money for owners — and even when a CEO is freed from that duty, the economists claim chasing profit is still best for everyone.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
19.

With which one of the following would the economists mentioned in the passage be most

Answer choices

  1. Trap19% picked this

    Even CEOs of charitable organizations are obligated to

  2. Correct67% picked this

    CEOs of owner-operated noncharitable corporations should make decisions based primarily on

    Why this is right

    Passage Summary Topic Whether CEOs have moral responsibilities or only fiduciary ones to owners. Framework Present Debate. The author rejects the economists' profit-maximizing view. Main Point Profit-maximizing doesn't guarantee public benefit, and legal obligations to owners don't override moral responsibility. P1: The debate Critics blame corporations morally; economists say ethics doesn't apply to economics. P2: Corporate responsibility = aggregated personal responsibility The CEO has a fiduciary obligation to owners. P3: Economists' view CEO's only duty is to owners; maximizing profit benefits the public anyway. P4: Author's rebuttal Profit-maximizing can harm the public (the paper mill); fiduciary duty is not morally paramount.

    Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Trap3% picked this

    Owner-operated noncharitable corporations are less likely to be profitable than

  4. Trap4% picked this

    It is highly unlikely that the actions of any particular CEO will

  5. Trap7% picked this

    CEOs should attempt to maximize profits unless such attempts result in harm

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free