If you're talking about age 60 to 65, that isn't true. We only changed to 65 AFTER ICAO raised it to 65. They changed their age limit, circa 2006, based on data.
Since you bring up the age increase, it's a good point to include. Those at the top knew about an upper the limit when they chose this career. They've already benefited from those leaving ahead of them AND they got 5 more years than they had planned. They also can continue to practice their craft, just not hauling the general public.
I had to sit and listen to a senior WB FO lecture me about why I should support 67 because he "needs" it. Nothing to do with discrimination, he just said he was unable to save any money in his 401k because he "had to pay for college for 4 kids." My counter is you did not NEED to fully fund your kids college, you chose to do that. It's admirable, but a poor decision if you're choosing that over funding your own retirement. All he did was increase the likelihood that his kids will have to support him later in life. He could have funded part of college, while still saving...they'll make their own money. I told him I enlisted in the Guard to pay for college and offered contact information for my base recruiters. Others told me they didn't contribute to their 401k because they didn't think they should have to fund their own retirement. ...uhh wut?!
If you don't think it's moral to have an age limit, then I can respect that. I disagree with it because we have all sorts of age limits for various reasons, of which most are value. But it's OK to disagree.