True, but the law has long held an obligation to "fall on your sword" disobeying illegal orders, even if it comes at great personal cost. See the lack of success of the "just following orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials.
Yes. There can be consequences. You could lose your job. Acting ethically despite potential personal consequences is what is demanded of a professional engineer. If you're not willing to uphold the code of ethics, you shouldn't become a licensed engineer.
The licensing requirement is supposed to help people refuse unethical demands. The business needs a license, and anyone they would hire to replace him needs a license. The engineering professional association thus has some leverage to enforce standards. Probably not enough to entirely eliminate personal consequences, but they at least reduce the number of unscrupulous people you have to compete against.
There is a undefined line between following orders and following the law.
The sales man does not know that it is illegal to sell the car. It is his own responsibility to not commit crimes. To not commit crimes one must know the definition of what a crime is. That definition can be found in the law book. In the Law book one can find that the car in question is illegal to sell.
It would be very hard for him to find that information but it is still his responsibility.
He's proposing a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, implying strict adherence to the "fall on the sword" principle causes prosecution of salespeople.
Because there's an implication, if you accept his argument, then you either reject strict adherence to the principle(modus tollens) or accept prosecution of the salespeople(modus ponens).
You interpreted his comment as accepting prosecution of the salespeople, but I believe he intended you to conclude rejection of strict adherence to the principle.
&
Thank you for that piece of information. I did not know that it was called that. Very interesting.