The weakness/limitation is easy as heck. Doesn't even require a whole video. Kant’s ethics drawback is that it's written by Kant! Jokes aside, as always, thank you so much for making the introduction to ethics so easy to access!
I find it really funny that for the first two hypothetical questions I gave an answer that Kant didn't say I would give. Overall, at least your articulation of Kant gives off the perception of some dude who's telling you what you feel, which makes it laughable to me when Kantian ethics is said to be objective. I mean, he literally appeals to my subjectivity!
I don't think there's any difference between "motive" and "expected consequences". Your motive for performing an action is the result you believe that action will have (or might have). I don't think any consequentialist would say that, in order for an action to be morally good, you have to actually achieve the intended consequence. So the soldier analogy doesn't work as an argument against consequentialism. In the analogy, both soldiers are acting in a manner that has the exact same expected results, so they both meet exactly the same requirements for moral action. And we do have control over the consequences of our actions, unless you believe in fatalism. If the soldiers hadn't tried to save 20 children, those children would have died, which is a different consequence than the result that occurred when the soldiers did try to save them. So clearly, the soldiers do have the ability to change the outcome of the situation.
