So, whether they'd work on making surveillance for totalitarian states was based on whether they'd make $60/k year or $100/k, and afford stuff "nice vacation" for the kids?
Doesn't sound like a principled stance.
Basically it rounds down to: they would consider a more ethical job, but it's their last priority, well behind a good salary and nice benefits...
(It's understandable of course, just not principled)
>The difference between $100k a year and $60k a year is enormous.
Principles shouldn't depend on that though. Else "Yeah, I'd help kill kids and kittens for $1m" would also be an acceptable answer. $1m is also enormous compared to $100k.
Decent people have made much bigger sacrifices that living with $60K a year for doing the right thing...
Doesn't have to be black and white. In fact, it's anything but. You can get a lesser job, with, as you said, 60K instead of $100K, and still take the principled stance. Black and white would be more like having to either work for the surveillance company selling to authoritarian regimes, or starving.
Losing your perks is not a "black or white" ethical choice.
>And job market would be fair with unlimited opportunities everywhere.
If they can only be good if they have nothing to give up for choosing so, and only when there are "unlimited opportunities" to ensure that choosing the more ethical job doesn't hurt their salary at all, then they shouldn't bother...
Doesn't sound like a principled stance.
Basically it rounds down to: they would consider a more ethical job, but it's their last priority, well behind a good salary and nice benefits...
(It's understandable of course, just not principled)