That’s a ridiculous comparison. “just following orders” is very much shorthand for following morally heinous decisions because you were asked to. In that case you disagree and quit. If you’re braver than most people you blow a whistle, etc.

Just following orders is not about working arrangements in a corporation. And if you do find working arrangements morally heinous then you disagree and quit.

It's assumed that you follow orders up to a certain point. You'll be told every day to do something you don't totally agree with (but isn't criminal), and you should do it anyway without dwelling on it too much, which maybe sounds obvious but some people really dwell.

Except, moving cities isn't a small decision you accept without considering quitting.

The power dynamics between a corporation and a person are very lopsided towards the corporation. Advice of “they should just quit” seems to assume opportunity elsewhere, and undermines the amount of pain and disruption to people’s lives at the whim of executives who can far more easily weather consequences. Having to have a Tesla instead of a Bugatti or a 24 foot boat is a lot different than someone worried about being able to make their mortgage payment, move their kids to different schools and a completely different social group, or face a multi hour commute. It gets a lot more dicey when someone will lose the roof over their head because someone decided to close a warehouse.

How would you describe the decision that kept their warehouses open and running despite dangerous heat levels?

"just following orders" implies doing something inherently immoral, but refusing to take responsibility and laying it on higher authority. Nothing like that is happening here. RTO is not inherently immoral - while I prefer remote work, it's a valid choice for management to have different preference for their teams. The team members can either agree with that or move to another team or employment - neither choice is morally wrong in any way. I personally think handling it this way would be detrimental for Amazon, but I am not their manager and they are, so it's their authority. There's no need to put it like there's only one obviously moral way to handle it and the other way is morally flawed.

In addition, the imposition of RTO strictures on employees who are neurodivergent (which makes up a relatively high percentage of the valley and other tech hubs for reasons I don't need to explain here) can also be considered a kind of immoral behavior since it is (intentionally or not) optimized to cause acute distress to those who fit into those neurotypes. I have intentionally avoided the tech sector for this reason and a couple of others (mostly to do with physical disabilities and inability to get medicated for things like ADHD)