What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

An act can be objectively immoral, in and of itself. But the person's heart is something that cannot be judged. For example, a man breaks into your home and steals some percocet from your medicine cabinet. Is action moral? No.

Now imagine these 2 scenarios:

1. The man stole your percocet in order to sell them to high school kids.

2. The man stole your percocet because his child is in great pain while recovering from an injury and he cannot afford a refill of the medication.

The fact still remains, stealing is wrong. Period. But in scenario 1 the man probably has a lot more darkness in his heart than in scenario 2. While stealing is still wrong, I'm willing to bet his culpability is greatly lessened in the second scenario verses the first.

What does that have to do with two consenting adults entering into a relationship together?

Also, hearts don't feel emotions; hearts don't think.  Hearts pump blood.

Nothing. I thought I was just answering your question about how an action can be objectively immoral while a person's culpability just depends on circumstances. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking.

I said "hearts" to symbolize a person's mind, motivation, etc.

---

Well they still don't have to live life like that. It's their decision, as it should be. It is not right to force it on anyone. If you read my earlier posts, you will see that I was not comparing the 2. Merely commenting on a statement someone made about not acting on impulses.

Um, yes you are, exactly by equating the impulse of pedophilia to the impulse of homosexuality. They are fundamentally different. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is.

You ARE comparing the two. You're saying the impulses are the same in principle, which they're not.

The poster I was refrring to made a general statement about sexual impulse. He has since specified that his statement only applied to consenting adults, and was not meant to be taken as a general statement.