...Which is exactly why engineers (like me) simply must seek out and look beyond the Kool-Aid their company and managers pour and understand exactly what effects the actions of their products and services have on the world.
We shouldn't just come into work, pull a bunch of levers and tell ourselves, "I'm sure the managers wouldn't let this happen if it were evil." We have to leverage our curiosity to extend beyond the Disney version.
BTW, this goes equally for marketers, a group I feel is as bad at ethics as engineers. Persuading people to continuously purchase and consume unhealthy food and activities is as destructive to the human spirit and our nation as bomb-making.
Zyklon B was invented in the 20s, long before WWII. So I'm not sure what Kool-Aid they were supposedly drinking. There were many legitimate uses.
Additionally, Haber (of Haber-Bosch, indirectly responsible for feeding like what, a third or more of current human population?) deliberately worked on chemical warfare as he really believed "in Germany". I'm pretty sure he didn't see his work as evil, and likely many of his employees would agree. I think I recall that they hoped it'd be such a shock, it'd end the war earlier.
I agree with your sentiment in general, but things aren't as easy as you're phrasing them.
But indeed the workers producing Zyklon B in large quantities had very strong indicators available regarding what was going on.
Think about it: You produce this poison gas for years and then, suddenly, a large part of the production pipeline is used to produce that same gas but without the smelling safety compound. What possible plausible reason could there be except using it against people?
I admit that some of them might have suspected that they were working (illegally) on a secret stash of poison gas for use in warfare. But that makes it still morally wrong.
If you have already listened to the Radiolab episode on Haber, I recommend also the one on the Milgram experiment. They, unlike practically every other instance of Milgram explanation out there, reported the actual results that the experiments gave: People will _not_ do evil when ordered, but they will do evil if they believe it is neccessary and serves a greater good.
Back to the workers.
Most of those bastards probably suspected something but found it unsetteling to pursue this mental avenue, so they didn't.
Some asked questions or raised the issue with a superior and recieved an evasive answer. Sensing uneasyness ahead, they did not pursue the issue.
Finally, if there were those that raised moral objections, they would have had a talking to, not a harsh one but an understanding one. "We know this is hard for you." "It is part of the bigger plan for Germany" "Someone has to do it" "We are all indebted to you for taking part in this gruesome but important endeavour".
Humans are like that. These guys all chose the easy way out. But it was still wrong.
For anyone interested in more about Zyklon, Haber, mustard gas, nitrogen based fertilizer and the ethics of it all I highly suggest checking on the radiolab episode that tells their story. Here is the relevant section: http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-proble...
We shouldn't just come into work, pull a bunch of levers and tell ourselves, "I'm sure the managers wouldn't let this happen if it were evil." We have to leverage our curiosity to extend beyond the Disney version.
BTW, this goes equally for marketers, a group I feel is as bad at ethics as engineers. Persuading people to continuously purchase and consume unhealthy food and activities is as destructive to the human spirit and our nation as bomb-making.
</soapbox>