Today we are faced with so many moral and ethical conflicts I have trouble in deciding which side to promote. The April 10 Chicago Tribune had two articles which create conflicts that puts most of us in the dilemma of which side we agree with the most.

            How can an environmentalist be for carbon sequestration to save life as we know it and be against the pipeline moving carbon dioxide from the emitting facility to the underground storage wells? This isn’t only conflict for a real environmentalist. On this issue we must go on the side of saving the planet over the rights of the landowners who will have their property damaged and an infinitesimal chance of a leak on their property.

            The other conflict in that issue is the human rights abuse in El Salvador. The country was almost taken over by street gangs until the police and military cracked down hard on the criminals who were kidnapping, extorting, robbing, and murdering all economic classes. El Salvador’s murder rate was well above any countries not at war. The crackdown has lowered the rates of all crimes at the cost of arresting some people who were innocent but most of those were released in a few days. The question – Is it more moral and ethical to violate rights or to allow the gangs to control the people?

            Other considerations are building housing and factories on much needed farmland. Consider if we mine, drill, and quarry to supply products at the expense of ruining the land forever, or fishing out entire species, and destroy ecosystems to feed a growing population of humans. Is it more moral to keep a dying human alive than to euthanize your dying pet?

            Democracy is full of moral and ethical conflicts and those conflicts cause divisive behavior.