Is Kantianism too much of a straitjacket?

So from all accounts, Kantianism seems to be a very interesting philosophy - particularly around ethics - in that it takes a deontological approach. <br><br>The key here is the theory of the categorical imperative, which is the idea we can deduce and absolute moral rules via reason.<br><br>I like the idea, but it seems to lead to extreme conclusions.<br><br>For example, Kant was against lying, even if it was to save a life. This is because Kant believed lying was inherently wrong. <br><br>The theory I believe also leads to conclusions like, you should not kill someone who is about to kill someone. You should allow them to commit suicide rather than killing them.<br><br>And, of course, stealing is also wrong. No matter the circumstance.<br><br>Now, I am not opposed to these conclusions, but it seems to me it's too much of a straitjacket. Does the theory not allow for flexibility or nuance? The conclusions that follow from it seem so absolute and rigid.