One of the most touched upon flaws is its inflexibility due to its dogmatic adherence to universal laws. Suppose a killer comes to your door and is looking for your best friend who is hiding in your house. Do you lie to the killer to save your friend or do you tell the truth and reveal where your friend is? According to Kant, a deontologist would be obliged to tell the truth. Kant argues that telling the truth is a universal rule and if everyone lied, society would collapse. However, is telling the truth the true moral action to take in this case? The consequences are disastrous since your friend will die if you tell the truth, but deontology doesn't care about the consequences as long as the means are "moral". (Kant 108) The inflexibility of deontology when it comes to consequences and duty to universal laws is a major flaw within the theory. Even if we can't predict all the consequences of an action, we can still see value in it. In this case with the killer, most people would choose to break “universal law” and lie because of the extreme consequences. Furthermore, the fact that a universal law, according to Kant, is broken implies that Kant's categorical imperative is flawed. The categorical imperative is too unaccommodating when dealing with extreme situations and is contradictory to the consequences view of deontology. Returning to