Continue ethical analysis

ethical.tex

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\section{Ethical analysis}
+\section{Ethical Analysis --- Consequentialism}
 
 \begin{frame}{Utilitarianism}
 	\begin{itemize}
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 	\end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
 
-\begin{frame}{Balancing the utility scales}
+\begin{frame}{Balancing the Utility Scales}
 	\begin{itemize}
 		\item People who pay more might feel stigmatized/discriminated.
 		      \pause
@@ -22,3 +22,41 @@
 	\end{itemize}
 
 \end{frame}
+
+\section{Ethical Analysis --- Deontology}
+
+\begin{frame}{Contractualism}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item Scanlon's contractualism: moral principles are those that cannot \emph{reasonably be rejected}. In a rough sense, only those in bad conditions can reasonably argue against profiling.
+		      \pause
+		\item Rawls's contractualism: \emph{the veil of ignorance}. Statistical profiling does (generally) fail this test.
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Contractualism and Responsability}
+	\begin{definition}[Responsability]
+		An agent is responsible for X if X is a result, foreseeable by the agent, of a free choice of theirs.
+	\end{definition}
+	\pause
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item The obvious counter-argument under contractualism stems from the idea that a person is responsible for a myriad of risk factors.
+
+		\item Smoking behaviour profiling: permissible (perhaps even encouraged) under both forms of contractualism. \pause
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{A Classification of Risk Factors}
+	\begin{enumerate}
+		\item Is the agent responsible for the risk factor?
+		\item Is the risk factor causally linked to the health cost?
+		\item Can the agent be reasonably expected to know about said causal link?
+	\end{enumerate}
+
+	\pause
+	Complications do arise:
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item Risk factors satisfying all three criteria (i.e. BMI, smoking habits, and alcohol consumption) are often bound to addictive behaviours.
+		\item If the second criteria fails, then one can reasonably argue against profiling under Scanlon's theory.
+		\item If the third criteria fails (i.e. smoking in the 1920s), one can reasonably argue our definition of responsability also fails.
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}