Moral ambiguity is a competitive advantage for the business too. Holding back "progress" turns you into a cost center in a real quick way and that's something the business wants to avoid.

Who do you think did better for Uber, the person who pointed out that it was technically illegal, or the person who pointed out that they could make a lot of money before the legal trouble materialized?

I've been at a company where that happened and the people who focused on data accuracy and brought that up in debates around prioritization got cut for not moving the business forward. As I got told, "if the customer is shown what they want to see (and they have no other source of information to compare), does it matter if it's accurate?"