LSAT考试——范文连载之（二一）_LSAT
"the goal of business should not be to make as big a profit as possible.
instead, business should also concern itself with the well-being of the
public."
discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion
expressed above. support your point of view with reasons and/or examples
from your own experience, observations, or reading.
i agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in
which it operates. but should this obligation take precedence over the
profit objective? my answer is no.
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 duty to serve 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 do 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 1 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 associated with shouldering business with an affirmative
duty to ensure the public s well-being.
instead, business should also concern itself with the well-being of the
public."
discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion
expressed above. support your point of view with reasons and/or examples
from your own experience, observations, or reading.
i agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in
which it operates. but should this obligation take precedence over the
profit objective? my answer is no.
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 duty to serve 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 do 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 1 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 associated with shouldering business with an affirmative
duty to ensure the public s well-being.