Do they really? Students who have taken an applied ethics class may be faced with inconvenient truths, like: - There is no universal truth (like "killing is ba

Do they really? Students who have taken an applied ethics class may be faced with inconvenient truths, like: - There is no universal truth (like "killing is bad"). Whatever "bad thing" people are concerned that tech companies are doing might not actually be bad in context. Perhaps there are multiple contexts, and possibly unknown states, creating a multitude of potential ethical states for a single "thing". This may conflict with the very reason they're getting interested in ethics, creating a dilemma (and possible paradox). - Ethics is uncomfortable, because you find yourself wrestling with questions like whether the "greater good" is more important than "individual good", or who should have rights, and what kind, and why. - You find that what are often generally-held truths are in fact not true when taken under study with evidence, so you have to decide whether you will accept a generally-held truth or a truth backed by evidence, and when there is no evidence, what to do. - It could be that Mozilla is just trying to influence people into not taking certain jobs at specific companies so they can achieve whatever their own organization's goals are. If so, what does that say of Mozilla's ethics? - You may not find any answers, and still have to decide what to do with a dilemma.