2 ms·

I don't think it gets ethically interesting, only politically, which isn't very interesting. Let's take a similar case: kill switches on cars. As you may know,

I don't think it gets ethically interesting, only politically, which isn't very interesting. Let's take a similar case: kill switches on cars. As you may know, not too long ago industry innovated a feature that allows remote disabling of a parked vehicle. This feature was used as an assurance of reposession and payment by automotive financing. They just stop the car from working on late payment. The result: lots of people who were previously unable to access automotive financing now could. This was a very good thing for everyone!

thereisnospork 6y ago
The politics do get ugly around skin color, but ethically it comes down to whether it is 'fair' to judge someone for something they have no control over[0] (genetic skin color, or genetic tallness.) Do we want a society where it is okay to charge red heads more for car insurance because they are red heads? Why should people have to bear the sins of others who happen to look like them? [0]And isn't intrinsic, e.g. people with big feet might pay more for shoes, but not for mortgages.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  Well, to talk about that we first have to agree on a definition of "fair". This doesn't seem practical in a society with such a diversity of opinions on the subject as ours. The more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of "fair" on others? I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the status quo. If some groups wants to charge redheads more, it's their choice. If someone else sees that as a market inefficiency, they can start their own shop where they don't do that. Who cares if you or I think it's "fair"? Edit: My original point was, the more nuanced we can be about whom we decide to give credit to, which these sorts of techniques provide, the less someone will find themselves lumped into a group in which they don't belong, and the more deserving people will have access to credit.

thereisnospork 6y ago

The politics do get ugly around skin color, but ethically it comes down to whether it is 'fair' to judge someone for something they have no control over[0] (genetic skin color, or genetic tallness.) Do we want a society where it is okay to charge red heads more for car insurance because they are red heads? Why should people have to bear the sins of others who happen to look like them? [0]And isn't intrinsic, e.g. people with big feet might pay more for shoes, but not for mortgages.

thegrimmest 6y ago
Well, to talk about that we first have to agree on a definition of "fair". This doesn't seem practical in a society with such a diversity of opinions on the subject as ours. The more important question is to what degree is it ethical to impose your definition of "fair" on others? I would say that there is no ethical basis for the sort of extreme imposition that's currently the status quo. If some groups wants to charge redheads more, it's their choice. If someone else sees that as a market inefficiency, they can start their own shop where they don't do that. Who cares if you or I think it's "fair"? Edit: My original point was, the more nuanced we can be about whom we decide to give credit to, which these sorts of techniques provide, the less someone will find themselves lumped into a group in which they don't belong, and the more deserving people will have access to credit.