'Kant's ethical theory has serious weaknesses.' Discuss. [10]

Kant's ethical theory of the categorical imperative presents more weaknesses than it does strengths. The Categorical Imperative is a deontological approach to ethics that does not factor in potential consequences of an action. In this sense it can be argued that a theory such as Act Utilitarianism far more of a better ethical approach to a moral dilemma than Kantian ethics as it is more considerate of our intuitive responses. Kantian ethics does present a clear-cut approach to ethics that might seem desirable. For example, it is generally considered wrong to kill more often than not. This means that Kantian ethics is compatible with the law which teaches that murder is forbidden. In this case, Kantian ethics proves to be strong as its universal law of not killing seems to be objectively right. For those who find it difficult to come to a clear-cut decision on what is the more ethical option in a given moral scenario, this ethical theory seems perfect as it requires no weighing up of consequences and instead teaches that you are doing the morally right thing if it can be universalised such as not killing. However even not killing might not be univerzalisable and thus violates the maxim of universalisation. An example of a moral dilemma that is approached more ethically from a consequentialst theory as opposed to a Kantian theory is the problem of the axe murderer. This dilemma challenges Kantian ethics as it teaches that lying is deemed ethical in this isolated case. This, in itself, challenges Kant's maxim of universalisation as it proves that telling the truth cannot be universalised even if it is seen as moral in most cases. Suppose an axe murderer came to your door asking if you mother was home. Based on the weapon that the murderer is holding, one can tell that the person at the door has the intention to kill your mother. In this case it is morally obligatory, if not permissible, to tell a lie and say that your mother is not home as this will prevent the killing of your mother. From this thought experiment we can tell that Kantian ethics does not consider the consequences of an action and does not comprehend that in this given situation, two evils have to be weighed up against each other. Though lying is unethical, it is not as unethical as killing and thus the lesser of the two evils which is lying has to be chosen. Kant's ethical theory deprives its moral agents of autonomy as they are unable to consider the intuitve consequences of their action such as lying in order to save a life. Based on the fact that Kantian ethical theory is both idealistic in believing that an action can be universalized and the fact that it deprives its moral agents of autonomy, I would argue that Kantian ethics poses serious weaknesses and is thus an insufficient ethical approach. I would also argue that, alongside other deontological approaches, Kantian ethics is not as strong as a consequentialist approach such as Act Utilitarianism.