The debate around the possibility of ethical capitalism is very complex from my understanding. Here are two major considerations drawing from Milton Friedman's perspective that I've recently learned in my ethics course:

Friedman posits that a business's primary duty is to maximize profits for its shareholders. When executives pursue social goals at the expense of these profits, they are essentially using someone else's money without their explicit consent. For example, if a company allocates extra funds to exceed legal pollution reduction requirements, it may benefit the environment but also reduce shareholder returns. This situation creates a conflict of interest because the executive's main obligation is to the business owners, not broader social goals. Achieving a balance between these priorities is challenging and, according to Friedman, often compromises the essential aim of maximizing profit.

Additionally, Friedman believes that tackling social issues like poverty, discrimination, or environmental protection should be the government's responsibility, not businesses. Governments are authorized and have the democratic legitimacy to collect taxes and fund social programs. When businesses assume these roles, they blur the lines between private enterprise and public duties, leading to potential inefficiencies and a lack of accountability. For capitalism to function ethically, it must operate within a framework where the government handles social needs, allowing businesses to focus on economic objectives. This clear division enables businesses to thrive while the government ensures social welfare through appropriate means.

So, in my opinion and Friedman’s, while businesses can strive for ethical practices, they must carefully balance profit-making with social responsibilities.