People working for dubious 3-letter agencies aren't absolved from responsibility or reflection; they are not supposed to be soulless drones. I disagree with you: I think we really can appeal to their moral sense to get up and say that what they're being asked to do goes against their ethics. Of course six-figure jobs and sweet maths problems are strong incentives to listen less closely to one's moral compass. Cognitive dissonance must be strong at the NSA offices.
It may go against your ethics, but that's a problem you will have to resolve within yourself. Even if you think it's unethical, you don't have the right to prevent other people from marrying same-sex partners or eating beef. The same goes for working for oil companies, weapons manufacturers, or the NSA.
That's not a rebuttal. Tempting as it may be, I will not go for the straw man argument about meat/weapons/LGBT issues.
Obviously I'll have to come to terms with the fact that "people in the world" have different priorities to mine regarding ethics; that doesn't change the fact that I believe certain things to be wrong and that (independently) I believe people should be held accountable for actions, even if just following orders (which was the original argument I was responding to).
Working for the NSA isn't a human rights issue, another reason that the gay marriage thing is a straw man. I'm not claiming someone shouldn't have the right to work for them, I'm just saying if they're instructed to do "wrong things" that those things are still "wrong" even if you're only doing them for your boss. (for whatever values of "wrong" -- hence your point about ethics being individual)
If you just don't like it, then whatever. There are no consequences. The problem arises when you try to outlaw things other people are doing because you personally believe they are wrong. If I'm RMS and I believe proprietary software is wrong, sure. I can be my crazy self and advocate free software. Shutting down Microsoft for paying employees to do "wrong things" that are perfectly legal is where the line is crossed, and that's essentially what people are saying about the NSA.
The judges are the historians, and they tend to have the last word.
You've conveniently created a nice sliding scale from those that marry their same-sex partners all the way to those employed by the NSA and if the present (international) trends are any indication you may very well be right in the way you ordered those, maybe the last two should be swapped, time will tell.
I'm sure people of the future will find all kinds of ethical flaws in the way we live today. After all, 500 years ago, slavery was normal and accepted.
Personally, I'd bet that our mistreatment of computer programs and robots will be considered so obscene that nothing else we do will even register.
