The history of corporate charters provides an interesting context because the limited liability was initially reserved for very risky but important activities like exploration. The original corporate charters were grants of both monopoly and limited liability offered by a monarch or sovereign for a specific approved business activity. Overtime society has expanded these grants to any and all business activity so we forget the original rationale for allowing these privileges.
Event the LLC is a relatively new entity. Historically business was conducted by partnerships. The partners were on the hook for the debts and actions of their partners and often put a lot of effort into limiting the risk of their business activities.
There is a strong argument that allowing investment banks to shift from a partnership to corporate structure allowed them to pursue much riskier activity. Goldman Sachs went public in in 1999 but was a partnership for 130 years before that.
The same motive applies to shareholders, if we allow them to benefit from limited liability it should be with the understanding that the company and its management have a duty to act appropriately which means the interest of Soviety at large and related concerns balances against profit concerns.
And there's quite a strong argument that the CEO was acting in their financial interests, just on a longer time scale than many people today can be bothered with.
The issue here is largely attributable to statements from Milton Friedman and people who like to quote him, which leads to the mistaken belief that companies are legally obligated to provide blind, hell-bent, maximum short-term-return-no-matter-the-long-term cost "value" to shareholders. Which in turn has all but driven out the idea of providing consistent long-term profit to shareholders, and to "I bought a bunch of your stock Monday, gut your company to give me a payday Tuesday or I'll sue and overthrow your board on Wednesday" somehow being enshrined as a noble endeavor.