Can legislative compromises solve moral issues? Consider the relative merits of meeting in the middle versus maintaining ideological coherence when evaluating your answers.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Can legislative compromises solve moral issues?

It is an interesting question that cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." That is the nature of moral and ethical issues.

Legislative compromises serve to dictate laws that must be enforced. But you cannot enforce a moral issue. That is why it is moral.

Legislators must serve the citizens who voted for them. Not to the interests of political action committees (PACs) or private interests of corporations. Legislators serve the American people, not to a lobbyist that negotiates on the personal agendas of the people who are rich.

That is the moral issue. The way a legislator is going to act when facing the pressure of particular political agendas that are the opposite of the interests of the US citizens.

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.