But when we cannot, we give priority to avoiding complicity in harm and wrongdoing. In this sense, the principles resemble the Hippocratic Oath which commands us, above all, to do no harm. This explains our focus on avoiding harm. We cannot define harm or evil independently of our vision of good. We cannot describe what we seek to avoid, or why we seek to avoid it, without describing what we seek.
Minor vendors complicit in harm fall into the conscience clause .
The principles make a response to them permissible but not obligatory. When we do choose to respond, we have the flexibility to take many kinds of action . When we can influence a vendor to change its conduct, we will do so rather than cease to do business with it. Finally, if this question is asking why we don't make it obligatory, rather than merely permissible, to nudge small vendors toward better conduct, then see our reply to the previous question . Yes, and that's exactly where we've put the emphasis.