Equal treatment is a topical issue and tends more and more to prohibit differentiation in premiums.

It is mathematically clear that on the whole premiums are lower with differentiation (so there is at least some mathematics in the presentation). Collectively differentiation is therefore beneficial to the society.

However, actuaries have difficulties in telling this to outsiders and they also do not understand the reactions received. My claim is that this reveals actuaries are in ethical sense utilitarians. Actuaries value solutions based on how good they are for the society as a whole. They find it easy to frame their thinking in utilitarian terms and they have problems in understanding other ethical standpoints. If, however, an utilitarian tries to tell a story to someone who subscribes e.g. to the Kantian moral imperative, the situation is bound to lead to misunderstanding.

This study will analyse the situation from the point of view of some different ethical standpoints and evaluate differentiation in actuarial techniques according to these. It then tries to evaluate what possible differentiation criteria (e.g. race, gender, age, disability) might be allowed in different ethical frameworks.