What is your point?

Probably that blinkered commercial justifications have been shown to contribute heavily to negative outcomes, and that funding by government for military purposes is historically a key channel through which these outcomes are generated. The example of IBM during the Holocaust is given.

Yes, there are counter-examples like the internet.

In other words, engineers should consider what they may be contributing to ethically before doing so. The justifications "If I don't do it, someone else will" and "But the building blocks are already public" and so on are tired and morally invalid.

To a nontrivial extent FAANG have similar stigmas.

> morally invalid

Genuinely curious, because that sounds so definitive; so what's the way to determine whether a viewpoint is morally valid or invalid? I'm not talking about this specific example about military-commercial funding, but how to consider statements like "If I don't do it, someone else will" on its own. The justifications are forms of reasoning, so I imagine there's an overarching principle to evaluate these ways of reasoning?

Indeed. It's called the asshole precept, aka. "Do unto others", "Leave the world a better place", "Ahimsa", etc. Most cultures have a version of it, including agglomerating meta-traditions such as Baháʼí, which is testament to its popularity across time and space.

That's a great answer. I can see it that way now. Thanks.