Working for a Defence Contractor - Amoral?

Well I work for the MoD, so does that make me amoral??

btw - I sleep very soundly despite me fixing the equipment that releases bombs/missiles, thankyou very muchly

I think you mean 'immoral' rather than 'amoral', which means without moral value.

You work in a company that helps your country to protect its citizen, that's a good thing isn't it ?

I work for a company that gets 'business' from the current war in Afghanistan, does that make me immoral?

The OP will be developing weaponry which is used to potentially kill innocent civilians (and has been in the past) so it's a different issue. Depends on what you mean by 'business' also.

The OP might be developing navigation equipment or fuel or aerospace materials or all sorts of technology which is not offensive.

Why does this matter? As my example above was supposed to point out, why is it supposed to be "more immoral" to produce guns for the soldiers than it is to produce food for the soldiers? Both are products that would greatly increase the soldiers' efficiency in killing, and in fact which are arguably required in modern warfare.

Banking? You might lend money to someone who might invest it in a company who'll make a small component that they'll sell to British Wasteofspace who also make attack helicopters. Don't you feel bad!

In this case, if you have moral questions about this sort of thing, I think you have to think of intended use.

That's exactly what happens with my food, however; as my example was deliberately avoiding the happenstance "it might happen to get bought by the army". If you're producing food for the army, it's intended use is to power people so that they could more efficiently kill others. If you're producing fuel for the army, it's intended use is to power vehicles so that they could more efficiently kill others, and so on.

Thus, working for a non-weapons defense contractor is not morally different from working for a weapons defense contractor, which many are saying here is wrong.

We could easily extend that argument to almost all products, services or technology. Researching trauma care? You'll save more soldiers lives.
Growing food? You might feed a soldier.
Banking? You might lend money to someone who might invest it in a company who'll make a small component that they'll sell to British Wasteofspace who also make attack helicopters. Don't you feel bad!

In this case, if you have moral questions about this sort of thing, I think you have to think of intended use. In the same way that someone who makes a weapon doesn't intend it to be used against civilians, someone who sticks the bull bars on Range Rovers doesn't intend it to be used to run over children.

So if you work on, say, avionics you make equipment that makes flying safer - the use of that technology; to ensure the safety of millions of air travellers, to drop bombs on unarmed civillians, to deliver aid to rural Africa or to ferry to board of BP around the world is something for the end user.

We've gone from killing 'innocent civilians' to killing 'others'. Killing people can be morally defensible.

Your argument also skips over some of the other things that the military does. Your food, for example, would be used to feed refugees and evacuees - isn't that morally good? What about the aircraft designer who's aircraft drop aid into natural disasters? Or the armour maker who's body armour protects the journalist?

Those points are stretching it too far, The whole purpose for PMC's are to develop weapons regardless of intention.

the whole concept behind them is to develop weapons; and provide it to anyone who has the money, which could be used for evil intentions.

Moral implication for OP.