This is a throwaway account.

Tl;dr You are only a "baddie" if you know that your occupational role is complacently illegal, harmful to the consumer, and you choose to not doing anything about it (to quit or report, for instance). Otherwise, it is just a personal moral dilemma, with the ethical bar set by you, the individual employee.

Businesses often operate against the personal desires and ethics of their employees, but I have found this can be necessary for the success of the business. And it is fully in the right of that business to operate successfully, no matter how morally selfish it may seem.

1. I worked for a company that had a great consumer product that fulfilled a clever need. They mistreated employees and contractors alike, had a lot of turnover, but delivered the end product with great success and glowing consumer reviews. The company in this sense was the bad actor, but only toward those it relied upon to function. It replaced people that were unwilling to participate, and management never blinked an eye.

(Known equivalent: Amazon shipping centers. You love your 2-day prime shipping, and you won't boycott even considering the conditions of those that get you your plastic melon ballers. Amazon is doing fine). I eventually quit my position, told friends not to apply, and still watch the company succeed to this day.

2. I worked for a company that had great ideals, strong and morally devout leadership, and fulfilled a meaningful purpose. They accepted a government contract to which I was assigned that caused great moral turmoil among the other SV tech institutions it had contracted. The end product was effective, but also morally gray, in that the intended purpose protected American soldiers on the ground, but the eventual uses were undeniably dystopian. Employees revolted, but their objections were mostly bark and no bite.

(Known equivalent: Google and their recent attempts at government contracting. Google is doing fine, though not with government contracts. Likely, Google made a mistake in bowing to the complaints, considering the upset employees were focused mostly on "government" and not on the "advertising-surveillance" that funds their current paychecks. However, the success of Google is dependent on their ability to attract technical talent, which could have been impacted if they continued after the public backlash). The business may have succumbed to employees concerned about a certain aspect of their company, but likely maintained their "ethical" conscience, leading to a successful future through retention of talent.

3. I worked for a company that tricked consumers into investing in inferiority, but marketed itself in a way that investors, employees, and end users alike had no idea that they were participating in what was certainly a scam.

(Think Theranos, and their ability to promise a revolutionary product while delivering smoke. This is the most egregious case of being a "baddie," but it is likely that many employees truly believed the promises and their hard work would amount to something great). I left this company feeling the most like a "baddie," but mostly feeling embarrassed I had been tricked into drinking the kool-aid. While it was my most pronounced "baddie" moment, I can justify that once I learned I was the "baddie," I immediately responded with a letter of resignation.

The ultimate learnings for me, as an individual, from a perspective that others may not agree with, is that a business carries the ultimate right to operate for its own benefit. It does not have to consider the implications of "baddie" business so long as the practices and strategies lead to financial success. If the business succeeds, consumers are benefitting and proving those practices to be the means to the end.

The people creating the product should always have the right to not participate if the business practices confront their own moral stances, even if that means resignation (termination is also j...