This is well written, but I'm not clear who this is really responding to. In particular, while there is plenty of work on fairness, accountability and transparency, has anyone actually seriously said that they are _sufficient_ for an automated system to be "ethical"? It seems that an actual claimed benefit of an automated system always rests on some prior notion of value, which this work deliberately ignores. Lampooning a position that no one has taken ("a FAT system must be ethical") is fun as a piece of writing but not especially useful as part of an ongoing conversation.
I think talking about each of these FAT dimensions has been important because plenty of systems have been rushed out _without_ seriously considering any of them. I.e. we've seen facial recognition systems that do comparatively poorly on particular racial groups, accountability or even the ability to _speak_ to someone in the organization which developed an automated system may be totally absent, and _most_ commercial ML systems have basically no transparency. Highlighting the importance of these gaps is useful and constructive. But I don't think anyone has pretended that they capture all important ethical considerations.
The US has a giant prison population. There are certainly biases and discrimination driving who gets put into it, and for how long. No one would say that just putting more rich white people in would "solve" the ethical problem even if it is more "fair".
The planet has a carbon emission problem which will cause giant problems in future decades. The worst harms may be in the global south. Causing greater harm to rich and Western countries isn't "better", even if it's more fair. Arguably, extensive scientific evidence provides transparency into who/where is emitting carbon. And also arguably, our global emissions are highly accountable in that we can all choose to change our own behaviors, divest from companies which emit heavily, and in many countries vote for parties or politicians who promise to aggressively address emissions. No one believes that creating a giant stack of crises for the next several decades is "ethical".
So yeah, well written take-down of that strawman. Good job.