A large part of politics these days is that many politicians seem to think they can fix moral problems with political solutions. Additionally, many people seem to think that those politicians can do exactly that. I disagree. You cannot solve a moral problem with political solutions. Now that Ive said that, I must point out that people differ on what the moral problems/issues are. Since they differ on agreement to the problems, they obviously would then differ on the solution. Ill mention a few in this post, but would welcome others to include their own thoughts on other issues. Moral Dilemma 1: Abortion/Unwanted Pregnancy Some people dont think abortion is immoral and some do. If unwanted pregnancies could be 100% avoided then this issue would disappear. The root of wanting or needing an abortion lies in a pregnancy that was unintended (maybe not always, but in general, that is the situation). I posit that part of the moral issue is actually getting pregnant when one doesnt want a child at that moment in time. That could be caused by failure to take appropriate preventive measures (potentially moral or immoral), failure of birth control (generally not immoral), or on occasion something as horrid as rape (definitely a moral issue on the part of the rapist). I dont think any politician can come up with a political solution to fix all of the above regardless of the morals of him/herself or his/her potential constituents. Moral Dilemma 2: Welfare Some people think it is moral to support those in need and others do not. Part of that is a disagreement on what constitutes need. Most of us would probably agree that somebody that is mentally incapable of caring for themself is in need. The question arises when one is both mentally and physically capable. As of yet, nobody has figured out a way to keep people out of poverty, but poverty is the root issue. If you look at the last 40 years, the percentage of people in poverty has been fairly constant. There are people that have struggled and used welfare as a safety net for a short period of time, then bounced back. There are people that have struggled and never bounced back and spend much of their life using welfare. How does a moral person determine when welfare should end for a mentally and physically competent person? A politician cant determine that moral decision for me or you with a political solution. Moral Dilemma 3: War This one is a bit different than the previous 2 dilemmas. I truly believe that the vast preponderance of people would choose to avoid war if they possibly could. When do your morals find a justifiable cause for war? I think just about everybody has their breaking point where they would agree to the nation declaring war. But with that also comes morals about what one finds as acceptable action in the war. How brutal will our side be? What do we consider to be an acceptable level of collateral damage? Are our losses of people and property more or less important than winning/ending the war? Politicians cant determine that for you nor I, but that is one decision where most of us have acquiesced to them. There are many more issues that one side or the other claim morals on that I havent addressed in this post. I welcome others to add their thoughts.