The problem is not moral but rational.
Indeed, Friedman's paper was a fallacy. As it has been evident to a comprehensive thinker, who realized, at the outset, that the Noble Price comity gave value to a document that obviously "affirmed the consequent."
Indeed, Smith argued that: "If you are good to society (the antecedent) you can make profits (the consequent); the market will control you. E.g., if you get up early in the morning to knead "dough," you can sell your bread at a profit, the "invisible hand" of the market will see that this profit is fair.
[NB The "markets" at the time (marché in French) were places where you could "walk" to buy goods. it is in these "marchés " that the consumers were the "invisible hand."]
Friedman said, in essence: corporations "have to" make profits (the consequent) to be useful for their shareholders (the antecedent).
It was easy for human "collective consciousness" to accept this fallacy since human "self-consciousness" is itself a fallacy. Indeed self-consciousness is the "consequent" of evolution, while all human activities are in a way or another "affirmations" of ourselves.
All living entities do affirm themselves in nature, but they do it while behaving following their evolutionary antecedents. Natural behaviors contribute to the homeostatic equilibrium of nature, ours to its destruction..