This "the hazard to the soul that the profit motive can be" is not understandable. Doesn't it have to be corrected to "the hazard to the soul that the profit motive can cause(make)"?
st220)Business is often viewed as a necessary evil, something required to live but generally sullying to the soul, an obstacle to a rich moral life, rather than a constitutive part of it. 'Do business if you must but be wary of its corrupting effects,' is a common view shared by the public. In some ways this is understandable given recurring business scandals and the hazard to the soul that the profit motive can be. Add to this the negative portrayals of business people in television and media, and it is no wonder that business and morality are seen as __________. A study on Hollywood showed that since 1970 business people have consistently been portrayed as the villains in movies and television. Yet it is not only the media. Even many of the approaches to business ethics taught in business schools tend to perpetuate this image by viewing business with suspicion and in need of restraint.
Last edited by keannu; 06-Apr-2013 at 18:46.
"Can be" means something like "sometimes is" in this sentence, so it is correct.
So is "that" an appositive that connects like "the hazard = the profit motive can sometimes exist" or a relative pronoun like "the profit motive can make(cause) hazard"? I think you meant the former, but what's the harm of profit motive existing?
the hazard to the soul that the profit motive can be
P/S Thinking about it deeply, I concluded it could be a complement also like "the profit motive can be the hazard", It seem to have more possibility with more natural nuance. What do you think?
Last edited by keannu; 07-Apr-2013 at 02:36.