Xref: utzoo comp.edu:1328 sci.philosophy.tech:739 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Blooms `Closing of the American Mind' Keywords: morality family enviroment Message-ID: <2893@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: 1 Sep 88 04:06:07 GMT References: <2909@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> <4101@pdn.UUCP> <558@vim.ARPA> <2970@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL Lines: 29 In article <2970@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: > In article <558@vim.ARPA> hinkle@brl.mil (Gerald Hinkle (VLD/SAB) ) writes: > >The government of the US tried to legislate morality once. It was called > >Prohibition. > I agree with your comment (deleted here) that morality is best taught > in the home. However, I disagree with your assertion that it is > impossible to "legislate morality." There are some cases where it > has apparently worked. For example, sociologists have done studies > which have found that civil rights legislation of the 60's did in > fact change people's attitudes in the South. > Norm I'm curious, does this mainly reflect the attitudes of a new generation that has grown up with the effects of the civil rights legislation (e.g., racial integration) and is now used to it? I would only think that this would work well in a situation where the legislation and enforcement actually succeeds in bringing about a new "status quo" long enough for a new generation to get used to it. Without question this happened with civil rights. Prohibition (and I must confess, the current illegality of `recreational' drugs) are another story. Enforcement for these fell (and falls) so far short of achieving the goal that their efficacy in changing the emerging generation's idea of the status quo is questionable. -- |------------Dan Levy------------| THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE ONLY | Bell Labs Area 61 (R.I.P., TTY)| AND ARE NOT TO BE IMPUTED TO AT&T. | Skokie, Illinois | |-----Path: att!ttbcad!levy-----|