Imagine you're fixing a car. There's a (relatively) clear spec on when it's considered fixed, and you strive to get there. You can get there by following instructions, or you can get there by experimentation.
Without knowledge of what is considered fixed, you're making shots in the dark. A lot of people are, and you have a chaotic system.
Comming up with a framework for what a person should strive to be is technically a job for philosophy, but that's not working, is it? We seem to be naturally change averse, and a lot of philosophical works boil down to rationalizing what you are doing is right. Kant reads like the bible of irresponsibility (What is the "Kathegorischer Imperativ" exept absolving responsibility to a higher mandate?), and Nietsche reads like he's trying to give you a free pass for everything provided you're the Supermensch (and who doesn't class themselves that way?).
No, creating frameworks is a dangerous game, and I've stopped trusting anyone to do a proper job at it. All religions I know of failed at it to various degrees (look at that track record for gods sake! They're still being used to justify murder). Most philosophers had their ideas tried out (as far as that was viable), and those approaches again didn't work out perfectly.
And here we're sitting, no idea how to do things, but hellbent on doing something. It's amazing we figured out science, which is why we can figure out those problems easily. But philosophy? We don't seem to have progressed there.
So yeah, fixing people is about as futile (right now) as physics has been before the scientific method.