I'm surprised to see this argument. Tooling and infrastructure are only as clean as the services they support. I don't think you get to wash your hands because all you did was build e.g. Palantir a giant database that's great for storing locations if you know customers will be assassinating political dissidents with it.
I don't (or no longer) think it's great form to say negative things about former employers on the Internet, so allow me to expound on the positive aspects of my point.
I think having great tooling / infrastructure at least gives stakeholders more options in terms of the business direction they're taking. You can pivot and execute faster, which to me means you can pivot away from something ethically bad and execute in a different direction faster.
Great tooling / infrastructure in my mind is also ethically salvageable and redeemable. A great tool can help an ethically positive division of the company as it can help an ethically negative division of the company. It may not always be black and white.
Lastly, great tooling / infrastructure generally requires top talent, which can move anywhere and is sensitive to things like ethics. Having great tooling / infrastructure, or the threat of losing great tooling / infrastructure by losing talent to ethical issues, can act as pressure for management to choose certain projects over others. I think Grasshopper is an example of one such decision.
