> An employee cannot really complain/shutdown the project on moral/political-ideology grounds, at the cost of shareholder profit, while they themselves suffer n

> An employee cannot really complain/shutdown the project on moral/political-ideology grounds, at the cost of shareholder profit, while they themselves suffer no ill consequence (since they get paid a salary regardless). I disagree - there are certainly things which would justifiably get shut down and cause them to not have an employee base if they went through with it. They are just so unnormalized that it is not only implicit but they don't even have names for it. It is perfectly legitimate that the untoward would face demands because it isn't what they signed up for. There are all sorts of depraved things which could be done for profit which anyone remotely moral and reasonable would nope out of - often because it is already stupidly illegal. In a healthy system this aspect goes unnoticed because nobody even tries for it because it would be foregone disaster in the same way attempting a coup in a healthy democracy would just end with the instigator in jail very quickly. The alternative logical result of the logic would be that when every cannery workers quits when the management decides to sell canned human flesh would hold the workers at fault and not the depraved cannibal manager. An extreme example but it demonstrates that the principle would have its limits. The reverse principle doesn't hold entirely either. Sailors thinking they signed up for timber shipping and finding they would be engaged in privateering with a letter of marquee or transporting slaves would be very within their rights to demand sticking to the enterprise. However objecting to hauling finished lumber instead of timber would be unreasonable of the workers unless there was say a safety issue from load distribution and vessel design.