If so, the advocate of Universal Feel can be accused of negligence. His original maxim states that his obligation (Universal Feel A) is to correct all of those who do wrong. If he only does so on a very basic level, he simply is not doing a thorough job. His work is incomplete. This simply means that he fails to be true to his principles.
What you are advocating seems to be relaxed version of Universal Feel, something that is much more similar to Argument 2, rather than Argument 1. Your position seems to be at an intermediate point between Argument 1 and Argument 2. On the one hand you say that people do have a responsibility to correct those who do wrong (resembling Argument 1), on the other you are saying that they should not be thorough about it. (Akin to argument 2 or the suggestion that to some degree, one of their responsibilities includes not correcting those who do wrong.)
That is a thoughtful response. I have not before considered a viewpoint that is a hybrid of positions one and two. However, this position incurs the same problem as Argument 2. One who endorses such a view may be inclined to eventually reject it in favor of argument 1. If he thinks that somebody is wrong, it will be difficult for him to supress the urge to correct him in all ways possible. That remains to be a problem that I do not see a solution to as of this moment.
My concern regarding Kantian ethics is that he thinks that they are founded on reason. This is a mistake, most people tend not to derive their ethical principles by virtue of philosophical deliberation. They do so viscerally, simply by having emotional reactions to their life experiences. The emotional reactions that made the most intense and longest lasting impressions upon them are the ones that entail ethical maxims. For instance, if somebody was raised in a religious family and was instructed that belief in God was important on daily basis, they would have an ethical principle regarding the importance of a belief in God.
Some people, as I mentioned earlier do try to use reason to discover what their maxims are, yet they tend not to reason in a deductively valid manner. In short, they too are being irrational.
Suppose we accept Kantian deontology and establish that it is possible to establish moral laws that can be universalized. If everyone followed such laws, the world would be a congenial place. However, can we truly expect people to follow such laws? Most people cling to their maxims due to their emotional convictions. When their convictions are opposed, they become irate.
My concern can be summarized as follows; I do not think that we can convince people to accept the more congenial system of ethics.