Not a relevant concern - what's relevant is if they have an opinion.

I'll work with almost anyone who can form an argument that shows they thought hard on the ethics of what they worked on, even if I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions. The people I don't want to work with are the people who when I ask them this, say: "you know, I never really thought about it that much. I kind of just leave that to the people in charge, and focus on trying to do the best work I can." There are a lot of people like this, but they're not a cultural fit for teams I create.

But is it really so, or do you expect the thinking to go in a particular direction? Let's say they are libertarian-adjacent, and think that e.g. ad manipulation is morally neutral. The first stage of that is not giving a crap. I was like that. On separate occasions, I actually did spent some time thinking about morality of certain things, and my opinions moved EVEN MORE towards not giving a crap - I found that some things I found instinctively icky and unacceptable, like sex work, pushing opioids, or placing people below the API (didn't work on any of those... yet?), are actually mostly neutral, and I have no reason to condemn them like I used to. Some things I still find icky, but now I wonder if some might be similar thoughtless bugs in my brain.

Is the mere act of thinking enough for you like this, or does it have to go the right way? :)