People do have legitimate chronic and/or acute pain, often severe. So there's a need for the painkillers in the market.

The problem is that Purdue's marketing went way beyond what was justified, leading to widespread overprescribing where that strength of painkiller wasn't necessary.

Neither?

I don't even know how it is possible for a corporation to be 'unalloyed evil'. At least above some threshold size, you're going to mishire and get someone who fails to kick all the puppies or twirls their mustache at an inappropriate time.

More seriously, strong drugs with high addiction potential are medically necessary for those who need them (my understanding is that there are no substitutes in some situations, and a lot of the substitutes for other situations are substantially worse along some dimensions). That shouldn't mean you do whatever you can to push volume, but, well.

So, in my view, they're producing important product. They're also run by awful, greedy human beings who should be snubbed by non-awful humans.

It is just another reminder that win-at-all-costs capitalism has... costs.

(If true as reported that...)

Given that they knew that their formula didn't last for 12 hours, and their response to each doctor was "increase the dosage and keep the 12 hour interval" which of course means a greater risk of addiction, I'd go with unalloyed evil.

It isn't binary. Neither is there a binary choice between ending the company, and letting them do whatever.