This is fundamentally what I’m trying to get at: I think your axiom that there is a hard and fast interpretation of ‘fair’ is wrong. The regulator has now clarified its stance as far as price-walking goes, and therefore the profession abides by it, but that doesn’t mean that every actuary who didn’t speak out against it prior to the FCA’s ban on it was being unethical. In effect, it is the FCA, and by extension the IFoA, who are steering the profession on what the agreed position is with regards to this now.
Was it unethical to be using gender as a pricing differentiator BEFORE the ECJ gender directive banned it? Or did we come to view it as unethical because of the ECJ directive? Why is it considered ethical now to still use age as a rating factor but not gender, if both are protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010? Sexism is not fair but ageism is? Is there only one “fair” answer to all these questions, per Joe Ordinary Public? Or does the perception of what is fair vary by societal segment, and change over the years?
Was it unethical to be using gender as a pricing differentiator BEFORE the ECJ gender directive banned it? Or did we come to view it as unethical because of the ECJ directive? Why is it considered ethical now to still use age as a rating factor but not gender, if both are protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010? Sexism is not fair but ageism is? Is there only one “fair” answer to all these questions, per Joe Ordinary Public? Or does the perception of what is fair vary by societal segment, and change over the years?