If you look at these things at an individual level, individual morality is a useful lens. But this topic is really about a class of professionals within a whole society. Influencing behavior through moralizing unfortunately works much better in the ancient tribal environment in which it evolved, where shame and ostracization could be used to punish wayward members of the tribe.

The reality of large societies is that a certain percentage of people will do immoral things even when they know those things are immoral, because they can get away with it or even profit from it. And they will do this especially when the rewards for immoral behavior increase asymptotically due to supply constraints.

Using morals to provide solutions only gets you as far as "X should Y". But prescribing "shoulds" doesn't solve anything. Changing incentives does. How to do that is the real question.

Unfortunately we all only really can change our individual behavior. So individual morals is all there is. Given that, you can 'go with the flow' and become a person that does immoral things, or you can hold the line and perhaps be an example. And keep your self-respect.

How is it hypocritical?

Working on something harmful may put you in a better position to do something about it.

Only if you have faith in some kind of mystical virtue separate from all consequences of your acts in the real world. Even an ethical altruist wouldn't be required to make an empty gesture which doesn't benefit anyone.

Huh. That's kind of the definition of a moral act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism is an entire category of theories of ethics (IMHO the only sane ones) that focus on consequences (for everyone, not only yourself) and do not grant style points for failed efforts.

Cynical to call it style points when you're the only one doing anything that matters. Like instructing a kid, or leading a crowd that could have become a mob, or starting a community effort to reduce graffiti etc.