I do not understand the dilemma.

The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for.

If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere.

So where is the intrigue?

Exactly, and this is what the deal has always been when you are an employee in a for-profit corporation. You do what the company asks you to do, and they pay you for your time. This is not "late-stage" anything it's the way it's always been.

If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.

Unless you are a personal assistant, your job probably is not to "make the life of your hiring manager easier".

You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good".

I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...

Tldr: Yes my lord, I'll build the concentration camps as you desired, as its not my business to question thy authority. As long as I get paid, I wont question the effects my work has.

What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.