Yeah, I know what and who you mean. I hate them.
And after you have accumulated enough treadmarks, you realized four things:
1. Only the ones who were really bad at it gave you the impression you were being stepped on at the time.
2. If it happened in a duplicitous and caniving way, and the organization as a whole allowed it, or worse (insert gasp of horror at the state of society) rewarded it, then what are you still doing there if it is so egregiously at odds with your own character and morals? Has it happened again since?
4. Not all the rules of the game are written down. Don't blame others for taking advantage of your naivety. If you advertise that you have a handle, don't be surprised when others use you as a tool. Don't know which handles you are advertising? Perhaps you should give that some thought.
I leave #3 as an exercise for the reader. #3 is not "EB is a big jerkhead for writing this down."
A different take on the "handle/tool" analogy would be "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Kind of a shift in focus/responsibility.
Shifting the responsibility is useless unless the newly minted responsible party is held culpable. Without a culture willing to burden the offender with a punishment, responsibility is a concept without teeth.
If you are referring to an internal sense of responsibility, one that causes the individual to reconsider their actions with empathy to the used party, then you are basically asking them to undo how the entirety of their life has conditioned them to act. This is unrealistic if their actions have been consistently rewarded.
Finally, if you are looking more to the concept of the good shepperd, I would remind you that ultimately, at least from the perspective of the sheep, the shepherd is responsible for leading the sheep to both the
shearing and the slaughter. Both of which, from what I have seen, are rather traumatic and exploitive. How can you be certain that the exploiter doesn't see their actions as consistent with that position?