He is not a consequentialist (nor should anyone be); he is not doing a calculation to try and take actions to minimize the total violence in the world (presumab

He is not a consequentialist (nor should anyone be); he is not doing a calculation to try and take actions to minimize the total violence in the world (presumably because he understands this view is a misguided fool's errand, though I won't speak for him). He is just refusing to participate. Unfortunately scientists and engineers don't have a group identity and oaths which tell them to do what is right with the skills they have; our standards are lower than those of lawyers or physicians. Does a physician decide whether or not to use his medical knowledge to murder bad people? No; he took an oath. If he did, he would no longer be a physician. A lawyer still defends Saddam Hussein to the best of his ability. Because he stands on principle. If he succeeds, it will make the world a worse place, but he tries his best anyway. He stands on principle because he has some. But here we see fellow engineers attacking someone for taking a very simple, clean, and respectable moral stand: I will not use my skills as an engineer/scientist to create tools designed to do things I find morally abhorrent. We should all be so principled.