It's in mangers best business interests to ignore ethics when they stand in the way of profits. They have a massive conflict of interest. That said, of course t

It's in mangers best business interests to ignore ethics when they stand in the way of profits. They have a massive conflict of interest. That said, of course there are business ethics courses but sadly economics are generally taught as being inherently amoral, especially in the US. Changing this would mean nothing less than abandoning laissez-faire capitalism, which would be a massive cultural shift in not just economics but (US or Western) politics as a whole. Programmers on the other hand, just like engineers or doctors or any other craftsperson, are only conflicted because ethics can get in the way of job security. If businesses were the military, managers are the officers giving orders, programmers are the soldiers pulling the trigger. If your officer tells you to do something extremely immoral, it's your ethical duty to object even if it means you will be punished. Even if it will only be recognised as the right thing to do when your officers are brought before a court by another nation. EDIT: As HN has ratelimited me again, I'll reply here instead: Yes, in the case of doctors the moral duty is in part enforced through licensing. But anyone thinking an absence of a legal duty means the ethical duties are entirely down to personal preferences seems to have a very short memory of history. There's a reason in my military example I explicitly said "even if it will only be recognised by another nation": laws are arbitrary, fundamental ethics are not. The Nuremberg trials are an oft-quoted example because it was a case of people being tried for blatantly unethical acts that were perfectly legal in their own microcosm (mostly because the people supporting those acts were also the ones writing the laws). If you're a soldier and your commanding officer orders you to perform massive human rights violations (even if your country does not consider the UN Human Rights legally binding) it's your duty to refuse, even if you suffer drastic consequences for that refusal. "Just following orders" has become a cliche for non-excuses thanks to people using exactly that justification for committing unspeakable atrocities. Also, fun fact: the German military distinguishes between binding orders, orders you can refuse and orders you must refuse. A typical example of the second category seems to be "go and wash my (private) car". An example of the third category would be a criminal act. But even despite those distinctions a soldier might be legally punished for refusing to do something unethical. Extremely immoral orders are generally also orders to do something illegal (and thus illegitimate in this case) but that mapping is neither guaranteed nor necessary. My point is that "doing the right thing" doesn't mean doing something that'll benefit you and "doing the wrong thing" doesn't mean something you'll suffer direct consequences for. Whether the consequences are legal, personal or financial (e.g. by being fired from your job), sometimes following your ethical duty comes with a cost. Nobody said any of this was fair.