Why institutional dislike did not stop shells, torpedoes or submarines

Did early safety and ethical objections prevent navies from adopting shell guns and other disruptive weapons?

No. Navies complained about the risks but still adopted shells, torpedoes and submarines because the capabilities were too important to concede.

The question recalls early objections to shell guns, including their tendency to explode dangerously. Practical problems and institutional dislike did not prevent adoption. The same pattern appeared in Royal Navy hostility toward torpedoes and submarines. Even while advocating submarine restrictions in the 1920s, Britain maintained the world's largest submarine service because unilateral abstention would surrender a real military capability.