Maybe Plato was Right?

This story comes from the Cincinnati Enquirer. Long story short, a 18 year-old girl "sexted" her boyfriend (and for those of you that don't know what that is, it's taking and sending nude photos of yourself using your cell phone's camera), he then sent the pictures to hundreds of Cincy teenagers, the other teens taunted the sexter with epithets of "whore," "slut," and I am sure worse, and then said sexter hung herself. Now the sexter's family wants the state to step in and create laws outlawing sexting.

First of all, my heart goes out to the family. Suicide is such a terrible ordeal that I cannot even imagine to understand the grief her parents, family, and friends are going through. Especially for someone that had her entire life ahead of them. However, more laws are not going to prevent this from happening. There are laws on the books outlawing teen use of alcohol, but it still happens. There are laws prohibiting drug use, but we still have drug dealers. We have laws prohibiting many, many other actions, and "stuff" still happens.

And let's look at this case. The teen was 18 years of age. And adult in the eyes of the law. So even if there were teen sexting laws, it's highly unlikely that she would have broken the law. And we do not need to have laws dictate morality. If I am an adult, and I want to post nude pictures of myself on my website or send them to friends (the world and friends quake with fright) that's my choice. But because I am not an exhibitionist (the world and my friends breathe a sigh of relief), because I know actions have consequences, I would not do such things. I don't think that a law is going to deter anyone from taking such actions.

So what does Plato have to do with all of this? In Plato's The Republic he states:

You agree then, I said, that men and women are to have a common way of life such as we have described -- common education, common children; and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether abiding in the city or going out to war; they are to keep watch together, and to hunt together like dogs; and always and in all things, asfar as they are able, women are to share with the men? And in so doing they will do what is best, and will not violate, but preserve, the natural relation of the sexes.

He proposes that in the Republic, the state shall raise and educate all children. In fact, he proposes that the parents not even know who their children are in order to make sure that children are properly raised and sheltered from nefarious content during their formative years. This is similar to what is being proposed here. The state knows best and therefore shall take over the duties of child-rearing by taking the burden off of the parents and place it on the shoulders of the state to dictate right and wrong. Why not just have children and allow the state to raise them. Already we have public education taking more and more responsibility for the rearing of children. Why not just allow the full development and and educational nurturing of the child fall to the responsibility of the state. After all, someone did say that it takes a village, right?