Yaw dampers are workload mitigation devices; not compensatory for design flaws. Dutch roll is inherent to any controllable aircraft. Violation of 25.173 in the form of decreasing stick force response curves on approach to stall is absolutely not the same beast.
Design criteria are prescriptive, and I'm not aware of any line of regulation that says an uncertifiable airframe can be made certifiable by the addition of a computer. These handling characteristics are not undesirable, they are uncertifiable according to regulations as written, and intended.
Even Airbus meets these minimum design criteria at their minimum automation threshold. Boeing for some daft reason seems to be being written a pass to selectively ignore regulations around Civil Transport Aircraft certification based on some serious levels of sunk-cost fallacy.
I don't believe in supporting limp-wristed minimal compliance when it comes to safety critical engineering. Not going the route of designing out the behavior requires the implementation of system after system, after system to compensate, with each link in the chain adding additional risk for failure over and above what doing it right in the first place would have created.
Whitewashing wins no one but Boeing anything. Please remember that. We entrust these people to design and manufacture safer, more efficient, machines. Instead of living up to that mission, they jeopardized it in the name of optimizing the revenue/profit generating characteristics of the company.
I get the reluctance to throw away a potentially recoverable airframe, but I'm dead against letting anyone whitewash over the fact the plane is more dangerous than it needed to be because someone wanted better numbers on their held stock, and was willing to put a more dangerous product on the market in able to do it.