No, he's saying that if he raises an objection, then his boss will fire him and find someone less competent to do the job. Then after he's fired for standing up for the good of society, society will tell him to starve to death because he doesn't have a job. Finally, his replacement will do a significantly worse job and the result will be greater damage to society.

This is why unions exist.

IANAL, but from what I can tell, unions tend to be organized primarily to protect workers, not the general public. Refusing to do unethical work is usually legally protected (e.g., by whistleblower laws), so your union representation can help you out (they have lawyers, and experience dealing with labor law) but it's not necessarily their main purpose.

When has a union in this context ever protected a member who refused to take action on behalf of the business for ethical reasons? Lots of unions protect inaction motivated by worker safety, but this is a different thing.

The -idea- of unions. They're not exactly in a strong place in the US.

I'm not. I'm saying that even if I were to be protected for standing up for immoral practices (which by and large I'm not) we're still putting the burden of morality in the wrong entity, the employee at the bottom of the decision tree. This is a burden that the state needs to impose on the top of the company directly, not have it be shifted to the bottom.

My comment, the OP, is not saying that the bottom of the tree should have the legal obligation. But I would argue that every branch should consider their own ethical responsibility. Don't confuse those two responsibilities.