Perhaps you do not understand the thought experiment proposed by Mr. Burnham. As the CEO of a company that makes rape whistles you started with one goal but the financial reality is that accomplishing the goal will ruin you financially and all of your employees will be out of a job. In other words you are now in a position of being punished if you do happen to accomplish your original goal. Capitalism at it's most basic only rewards profits.
Many financial pursuits are finite, rather than repeatable pursuits.
This is not bad, simply fact.
Regulations to restrain greed are a temporary stop gap at best. Greed will then be ever vigilant for ways to circumvent or repeal these regulations.
Good and evil forever in a push and pull, fact of life.
The only real way to effect change in a capitalist system is to monetize selling less of your product as it becomes less necessary. What regulation do you propose be put in place? Shall we subsidize rape whistle companies commensurate with the losses they experience as their product accomplishes the end they originally set put to achieve? Do we do this with every conceivable enterprise? How do we subsidize everything? Where would the money come from? Capitalism is not equipped to prioritize human welfare.
Regarding rape whistles, government simply prevents Monopoly from being held by 'one interest.
And pursues regulation that combats the existence of rape in society.
People don't mind others pursuit of profit, but there are limits. If a company advocated for more rape, just so they can sell whistles, society ought be hostile towards that company that encourages a social ill for it's own profits.
I'm sure some people would like a number of products such as drugs to be 'completely unregulated, sellable even to children.
But people 'have regulations to prevent that.
Have regulations to prevent even certain drugs being glamorized in children ads.
Can be a balancing act, but societies manage.