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?”

“Refactoring” brings out my inner skeptic. I’ve heard too many Agile enthusiasts who sound like they code at Hogwarts, waving their wands while yelling refactorum! at badly written but functional code so it magically realigns itself into a form that adheres to good programming standards.

People Who Know Such Things tell me I’m not being entirely fair, as if being entirely fair is something People Who Publish Blogs are supposed to aspire to. At times, they say, getting code to do what it’s supposed to do first, and then rewriting it into a better form can make more sense than trying to write it both right and well at the same time.