You reacted to my sentence: "But unfortunately, you cannot force a dev to get implied in the business aspect if they don't want to"

What you say is that you cannot force them, but you can replace them. So you just say my sentence is perfectly correct.

Not sure what you bring to the conversation. Sure, a manager can fire a dev to avoid the toxic scrum situation (that's pretty obvious). Identically, a dev can quit to avoid the toxic scrum situation. Or, even better, the dev can grow up as a person and as a professional and try to make things work by doing their job that involves understanding the business situation too.

The latter seems to me to be the most sane one, and firing seems to me to be pretty drastic.

My point is that the dev has some responsibility in the toxic situation and it's just being ignorant to not notice that.

And, yes, it's sad that some managers don't do their work well and decide it's easier for them to have a toxic situation than taking the risk of firing someone (which can be a long process and can easily backfire on them, especially if the dev in question is not mature enough to understand they are part of the problem). But why these managers would be more guilty than the devs who created the toxic situation in the first place? Somehow, it's like devs have the right to be bad but managers should all be expected to be perfect. Or that devs have the right to think "not worth it, I will not take more risk or spend more energy to fix a toxic situation, I'm just going to ignore it and it can be someone else problem" but the managers don't have that right.

Oh, and funnily enough, in other discussions, some people answered that it's the responsibility of the manager but not of the dev. The same people who were complaining to be micromanaged and were asking why the company is not trusting them to take responsibility for the good operation of the company. Or that they could easily do the manager's job. Or even said that managers are a useless job anyway.