Is the preceding poster a poltroon or not?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

RFayette is not a poltroon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The categorical imperative may have been criticized for indicating that it's wrong to lie to protect somebody from a murderer, but consequentialism has been criticized for indicating that it's moral to kill someone to harvest their organs. Clearly you didn't even read to the end of the section in question, which brings up a possibility that both Kant and Constant fail to address. Is it possible that the originator of a concept may not have the most ironclad understanding of it??!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The categorical imperative may have been criticized for indicating that it's wrong to lie to protect somebody from a murderer, but consequentialism has been criticized for indicating that it's moral to kill someone to harvest their organs. Clearly you didn't even read to the end of the section in question, which brings up a possibility that both Kant and Constant fail to address. Is it possible that the originator of a concept may not have the most ironclad understanding of it??!

I skimmed it. Moral systems that don't take what happens as a result of an action are by nature irrational and damaging. And you clearly don't understand my view of consequentialism. Killing someone is only moral in either A. Self defense,(sometimes) or B. If doing so would save more people then were kill (killing one person to save a single individual is a complex grey area).

I understand your view of consequentialism very well, actually; thank you for confirming it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kalwejt is many things, not all of them good (although most are!), but a poltroon is definitely not one of them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Absolutely not.