Kantian ethics, also known as deontological ethics, is a weak theory. you take the assumption that there is good and evil (even though thats not what Kant believed) and try to establish a standard for determining what is good and evil. according to Kant, what makes an act good or evil is the reasoning that leads up to this act. That makes this ethical standpoint ripe for exploitation. it basically gives people free reign to do what they want as long as they follow up with "but i meant to do good by it". Someone could reason that to end world hunger they need to simply kill off 1/3 of the worlds population. their reasoning is to end world hunger, a "good" thing. they put all their good will behind it, and focus all of their being into accomplishing the goal of ending world hunger by mass killings. according to Kant, as long as your motives were good and you followed through with all you could muster, it is a good deed. Conversely, if one donates one million dollars to charity, but is motivated to do so by the desire to receive public recognition and fulfill their ego, it is a bad deed. it is impossible to truly know the reasoning behind anyone other than yourself performing an action (and sometimes not even that), and that is the deal breaker for Kantian ethics. one could perform a "good" deed with a "good: motive, even knowing that it will lead to a poor or disastrous outcome, and still be lauded as a hero by way of deontological ethics. Anyone and everyone could exploit this system of ethical standards to be a "good" person, as long as one has "good" (in the sense of right and wrong, not in the sense of logic) motives.
its just plain stupid.
