Talking about business ethics is like drinking bourbon. It starts out as a conversational lubricant and can lead to interesting exchanges of ideas. But if you keep going, mostly you’ll end up just shooting your mouth off, without saying anything at all interesting and possibly getting into a pointless fight.

So I’m returning to the subject with some trepidation. Nonetheless, a point raised by a number of correspondents in response to “Development team ethics, Part I — The Abyss,” deserves attention. So pour another shot and settle back.

The article pointed out that publicly held corporations aren’t just human beings only bigger. In particular, corporations, unlike human beings, aren’t presumptively moral … they are, instead, presumptively amoral. It’s a point required by the shareholder-value theory of the corporation, which insists that maximizing the return on shareholder investments is the measure of “good” for the enterprise.

“So how,” my correspondents asked, “do you explain corporate philanthropy?”

I won’t stoop to an Anthony Weiner tie-in. I won’t stoop to an Anthony Weiner tie-in. I won’t I won’t I won’t I won’t …

Oh, hello there. Welcome to Part 2 of our review of a moral cesspool. No, not that cesspool. We’re talking about project management as described by Scott Ambler in his recent article, “Survey Shows Unethical Behavior Rampant Inside IT Development Teams,” (Dr. Dobb’s Journal, 5/3/2011).

Last week’s column set the stage by reviewing three relevant ethical principles and distinctions:

  • Deontologism vs Consequentialism: Whether to judge ethics based on the action itself or its consequences.
  • Corporations as moral entities: They aren’t. They’re presumptively amoral (not immoral) entities whose “ethical” guideposts are profits and shareholder value, and whose ethical boundaries are whatever the law and applicable regulations allow.
  • Employee ethics: When acting as employees, human beings are their employer’s agents, subordinating their own ethical code to that of their employer. This includes how they work with their employer.

Now we’re ready. Mr. Ambler lists four areas of questionable ethical practice: Budgeting, scope management, scheduling, and quality.