the ethical theories of 'Utilitarianism' and 'Kant's Moral Theory

how these moral theories can be applied to evaluate the ethics behind racial profiling. Which theory is more acceptable to your moral reasoning? Do you think, these theories provide an adequate solution to the problem in this case? Support your position using reason and evidence from reading and research. r a. Briefly explain the theories of Utilitarianism and Kant's Duty Ethics b. Analyze the issue from the ethical perspectives of utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics of Duty c. Find solutions using the perspectives of utilitarian and duty/obligation based ethics. How do the given solutions impact the society and individuals? d. Choose a position and defend it. On this issue, what is your position: PRO or CON? Daniel and Ezra were both recently stopped and frisked by the cops while walking down the street in New York City. Daniel is African American. Ezra is an immigrant from Israel. Daniel feels like the "stop-and-frisk" policy is blatantly racist. "The cops just target people of color, looking for an excuse to hassle us," he says. "I've got no reason to fear the police. I have done nothing wrong. But it makes me mad." Ezra is a bit more sympathetic to stop-and-frisk policing. In Israel, people's bags are searched when they go to the corner store. Ezra says, "I'm not worried about it. The cops know something about who is likely to commit a crime. They're not searching old ladies. That would be a waste of time. There are bad guys out there. And I want the cops to catch them. If I fit the profile somewhat, it's worth the hassle. It actually makes me feel safer to know that they are targeting their searches." Daniel relies, "Yeah, but this is America, not the Middle East." Is it racist and discriminatory to target certain people for searches? Would it make you feel safer to know that the police were targeting people in this way? Should equal treatment be sacrificed in the name of public safety?