With the COVID-19 outbreak severely overwhelming healthcare systems worldwide, countries must decide on allocation criteria for scarce intensive care resources such as ventilators, leaving some without life-saving treatment. Groups such as the Italian College of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) have suggested using age as allocation criteria, prioritizing the young over the elderly. In judging the morality of such criteria, different ethical frameworks must be applied. From a utilitarian perspective, age-based allocation ensures “the greatest good” – that those with greater “therapeutic success” or “quality-of-life” get access to intensive treatment. However, age poorly predicts prognostic outcomes, and quality-of-life measures are inherently value-laden. From a contractarian view, a morally justifiable action is one made in ignorance of one’s own stake in the outcome. In this lens, age-based allocation is justified since it maximizes the most life-years for the most people. However, it relies on the same flawed assumptions as utilitarianism. From a prioritarian view, age-based allocation ensures that the rights of the young to live out a “normal life span” are respected. However, such judgements ignore the positive experiences of later life and cannot be made on a patient’s behalf. Through a deontological lens, age-based allocation is discriminatory as it views elderly people as means to an end rather than individual agents. Ultimately, the rationing criteria a society uses reflects its values, with age limitations implicitly devaluating the elderly. Therefore, allocation guidelines should deemphasize age in favor of more predictive and less discriminatory measures like multimorbidity or frailty.