64.        I agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in which it
operates. As it stands, however, the statement permits one to conclude that this
obligation should take precedence over the profit objective. By allowing for this
interpretation, the speaker fails to appreciate the problems associated with shouldering
business with an affirmative duty to ensure the public's well being.
      The primary reason why I agree business should have a duty to the public is that
society would be worse off by exonerating business from social responsibility. Left
entirely to their own self-interest, businesses pollute the environment, withhold
important product information from consumers, pay employees substandard wages, and
misrepresent their financial condition to current and potential shareholders. Admittedly,
in its pursuit of profit business can benefit the society as well—by way of more and
better-paying jobs, economic growth, and better yet lower-priced products. However,
this point ignores the harsh consequences—such as those listed earlier—of imposing no
affirmative social duty on business.
      Another reason why I agree business should have a duly to the public is that
business owes such a duty. A business enters into an implied contract with the
community in which it operates, under which the community agrees to permit a
corporation to co business while the business implicitly promises to benefit, and not
harm, the community. This understanding gives rise to a number of social obligations on
the part of the business—to promote consumer safety, to not harm the environmental, to
treat employees and competitors fairly, and so on.
      Although I agree that business should have a duty to serve the pubic, I disagree
that this should be the primarily objective of business. Imposing affirmative social
duties on business opens a Pandora's box of problems—for example, how to determine.
(1) what the public interest is in the first place, (2) which public interests are most
important, (3) what actions are in the public interest, and (4) how business' duty to the
public might be monitored and enforced. Government regulation is the only practical
way to deal with these issues, yet government is notoriously inefficient and corrupt; the
only way to limit these problems is to limit the duty of business to serve the public
interest.
      In sum, I agree that the duty of business should extend beyond the simple profit
motive. However, its affirmative obligations to society should be tempered against the
pubic benefits of the profit motive and against the practical problems associates