The Universalism of Kantianism

In my studies of philosophy, I have always noticed that viewpoints in philosophy goes from one extreme to another. In ethics, one extreme is Utilitarianism, which is discussed below. The other end of the extreme I believe is the theory put forth by the Immanuel Kant, which I will regard as Kantianism. Kant was a polar opposite in regard to the Utilitarianism put forth by Jeremy Bentham. In essence, Kant put forth in imperative that regarding acting ethically in universal terms. If an action cannot be right (or wrong) in any thinkable scenario, it is not to be accepted as a rule. For example, if I make a universal rule that it is wrong for a human to kill another human, there is not circumstance that can be an exception to that rule. If I kill in the heat of passion, premeditated, in war, in self-defense, it does not matter. I have no justification for killing anyone, because I have made a rule against killing.

It's funny, I find that the major downfall of Kantianism is its lack of flexibility. I think to a degree you have to find some sort of flexibility in your viewpoint. I think universals are difficult at best to achieve. Its funny, the very things I am critical about in line with Utilitarianism (it has so much flexibility it is relative), I am also critical about Kantianism for the opposite reasons (it is not flexible enough). I think the next position takes a bit of a middle ground that I think is necessary to bridge the gap between these striking viewpoints.