This is because its outcome if adopted by everyone would be to make human society universally better, — Enrique

We differ, here, and I go so far as to say that I'm right and you're wrong. Actually, never mind me. But what's wrong? I think it correct to say that Kant worked hard to stay within that which reason could tell him. For one thing, reason cannot predict the future.

The categorical imperative (CI), Kant's general term for thinking that has certain characteristics, has several dimensions, logic/reason, ethical/moral, and finally, ultimately theological. Like this, in paraphrase:
1) You should be willing for your rule for your action to be adopted by anyone. But if you suppose it's right for you to lie, that implies it's right for anyone to lie, and if it's right for everyone to lie, then truth is out the window (in the medieval sense of what goes out the window!).
2) Never use a person as a means, but only as an end. Added to the reasoning of #1 is the notion that using a person denies their personhood, and implicitly to deny another's is to deny all and to deny your own.
3) Act as if you were a legislating member of a kingdom of ends. From #s1,2, "The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in legislating these principles for their community." This last from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#KinEndFor Section 8.

Nothing here is about utilitarian consequence. Everything here is about prior conformance with an ethical system of reason. Is the Kantian estopped thereby from having consequentialist concerns? Not at all. A Kantian engineer will build a good bridge for the consequences of it. But that will be conditioned by his CI that says he ought to build a good bridge because if he did not, then at the very least he must suspect every other bridge.

Sense?