"Corporations seek to maximize profits in any manner possible. An individual functioning in such a manner would likely be a sociopath" this is a presumptuous statement. please provide evidence.
You are right, Ed, that the distinction is rather pointless. Sole proprietorships and partnerships before the invention of corporations were no better. On a side note, I had read that the justice department wanted to get away from criminal prosecution of companies. A company has deep-pockets, and cannot be put in jail. A VP who knew or should have known that something was going on, has modest pockets and can go to jail. I believe that this change in direction is real based on handling of Enron and Arthur Anderson. I do not believe that this serves justice especially social justice, but it should have drastically reduced tort risk premium for US companies.
Steven, the distinction was only important to make the point, now beleaguerred, that companies are made of humans and it is not legitimate to think of them as "in-human" any more than it is to think of the Government as "in-human." This does not mean that they, as creations of man comprised of men (women too), cannot perpetrate evil acts. Corporations and Governments, run by people, can act in evil ways, just like people. Your legal extension of the point of corporations legal status as 'persons' is correct and you take the issue further than I sought to, simply using it as an example in rebutal of the 'inhuman' slur. But that is an issue outside my point.