I don't think the attack on Kant is nearly as ironclad as it appears. A true consequentialist bases his actions solely on the basis of outcome. The Kantian "litmus test" for whether an act is moral or not is whether one could, in good conscience, will the act into a universal law. If the act cannot be made universal, if fails the test. Kant's theories deal with duty, the performance of which could still have a negative outcome. Unlike the consequentialist, he concentrates on the act itself, rather than viewing the end result, and finding a means to get there. The criticism is of the means, with the ends as something of a measure, sure, but much less a measure than the strict consequentialist, who can more esaily justify an immoral act on the basis of achieving a desired end. A consequentialist sees an end as desirable, then justifies actions to attain it. A Kantian desires moral ends, but evaluates the acts (means) themselves, and should disavow any act that fails the CI test, whether it would lead to the ends or not.