Should have answered this in my earlier post, as it's the natural question to ask.

Life is complicated. I don't say that to somehow absolve me of responsibility, but rather because I feel that hardline extreme stances are generally counterproductive and don't really reflect the complex nature of issues.

For example, a military contractor could have a personal view of not supporting, say, the Iraq war. This does not mean that said person thinks that all military spending is bad.

I view it as akin to police protecting a perpetrator from others. They may hate the guy, hate what he's done, but it's still their duty to protect him.

Of course I agree. Should the positives outweigh the negatives and you want the position because of that then I guess it could be called professional to accept those negatives stoically and not whine about it. It would definitely be unprofessional to take such a position and then moan about it all day.

I just wasn't fond of the wording. Seemed to say that under the guise of professionalism we're all justified in going against our morals. It's that contradictory mentality you see in business where you run a tobacco company by day and go home to hug your kids at night. To pay the bills? Those would have to be some pretty serious bills... Probably not the way you meant the statement, and just the way I read it ;)

No offense taken; I appreciate the opportunity for reflection. While composing the above, I noticed that the theoretical scenarios I was constructing were becoming harder to justify, so I admit I cherry-picked a more clear cut one. It seems like justification is a bit of a slippery slope.

There's so much interconnectedness that you sort of have to essentially pick how close you're willing to get to something you don't agree with. It's pretty difficult to have nothing to do with X for most values of X.