But if it wishes to stand by the stated principles of its founding and the message it attaches to its history, than profiling cannot be allowed to exist. 4) Deontological ethical systems "guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do," as opposed to suggesting what types of people we should be (Stanford, 2007). Another important distinction of deontological viewpoints is their emphasis on the motives and intentions behind an act in regards to that act's ethicality, as opposed to the consequences of that act. One narrow form of deontological ethics is moral absolutism, propagated by such thinkers as Immanuel Kant (Stanford, 2007). According to his view, acts are either moral or immoral in all situations, without any regard to the consequences (Stanford, 2007). Not all deontological viewpoints are this extreme, however it provides the clearest example of the deontological view. According to deontological ethics, acting in a moral way cannot have immoral effects.

Utilitarianism, in contrast, places all of the burden of morality on the effects of an action (Stanford, 2007). The overriding maxim of utilitarian ethics is "the greatest good for the greatest number" (Stanford, 2007). According to this view, the intention of an action is completely irrelevant to its morality, and each act must be viewed in the context of its occurrence. For instance, killing cannot be considered immoral simply on face value -- there are situations where killing one man might save many lives. According to utilitarian ethics, it would be immoral not to kill this man, whether he is the direct cause of the others' deaths or not; it is the outcome of the act (or the non-act, as the case may be) that determines morality in utilitarian ethics (Stanford, 2007).

5) Deontological ethics could both support and oppose my position on racial profiling. It could be argued that the intention of the profiling is to save lives. Because this can be generally agreed upon as a moral intention, it could be believed that...

It could also be argued, however, that the intention of the act is to discriminate based on race. From a moral absolutist standpoint, this act must be condemned in all situations, or it must be upheld in all situations. There is not enough space here to reconstruct moral arguments for the rejection of racism as moral, but it is generally accepted that racism and discrimination is immoral in most situations. If this is the case, than an absolutist deontological view would necessarily condemn racial profiling as immoral as well.
Utilitarian ethics seems, at first, to be much more clear cut on this issue. Certainly, the rights of the people that would be subjected to increased scrutiny at the airport of racial profiling were allowed to become common practice would not matter in the face of the lives that stood to be saved, from the viewpoint of utilitarian ethics. The greater good is served by preventing terrorism at almost any cost; racism is not the issue when it comes to utilitarian ethics. This does not entirely solve the issue, however. In order for utilitarian ethics to deem racial profiling moral, it would have to be established that racial profiling does in fact serve the greater good. That is, it would need to be proven reasonably likely that racial profiling is the most efficient way to prevent terrorism at airports and aboard airplanes. In my view, this has not been established, and in fact there is evidence that it is not the case. Therefore, utilitarian ethics would deem racial profiling immoral not for its racial aspects, but due to its inefficiency.