“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” this is just one of the many extreme quotes in the laws throughout the Hammurabi’s Code. The Hammurabi Code is full of laws that encourage very gruesome punishments and unholy treatment towards wrong doers. I personally feel that many of these so called laws are unfair and seem very intense, most are ratifying violence or death towards a person who may have just may a mistake or said the wrong thing. So with all this in mind I feel like the Hammurabi’s Code is not just. The first reason in which the Hammurabi Code is not just is because it gives unfair treatment towards different types say it is giving fair treatment but when you read and reread some of the laws you will see how unfair it really is. For example it says “If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.”. But if it was a man being struck then the man would get struck back and in this case a child is killed and money can’t buy a person born or unborn. The punishments change if you’re a man, women, and or a slave which means these laws are unfair and aren’t steady for different people in the world. …show more content…
It seems like they like to resort to violence instantly they don’t believe in talking it out or saying sorry. This is evident throughout many laws such as “If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.” and “If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.” and there is many other that are too brutal for the law that was broken. Some of these punishments are acceptable for the crime committed, but others could be treated in a more calm, less violent way. So that is just another reason why I feel like the Hammurabi’s Code is not
Hammurabi’s code is believed to be the first form of written law. It consists of a set of 282 laws written by Hammurabi, the king of Babylon circa 1792 BCE, that established a written social contract amongst the people of Babylonia. It was written on a stone stele that stands more than eight feet tall and weighs over 4 tons (doc A). According to the stele, Hammurabi was instructed to create the code by Shamash, the god of justice (doc B). However, it introduces conflicting ideas about justice that are arguable to this day. Were his rules unethical or his punishments too severe? Hammurabi’s code may be seen as unfair by today’s standards, but in solving matters that involve family, property, and health issues of his time, Hammurabi’s code was just because it utilizes negative reinforcement to implement positive results in society.
Hammurabi’s code could have been just in many different ways depending on the situation, but Hammurabi’s code also killed many innocent people! When Hammurabi made the laws, they were placed in the middle of the town, so the people knew about the laws and the consequences if they broke the laws. In Hammurabi’s words, he said: “ Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. … That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans.” (Doc. B). He promised to protect the weak and Hammurabi did not keep his promise. Although he meant well, Some of the laws were unjust and unnecessary. Here is why Hammurabi’s code is unjust to the property laws and the personal injury law.
The codes created by Hammurabi were without moral because they were too cruel, they did not look at both sides, and the laws were written by Hammurabi himself, with no input from the citizens of Babylon. The codes were too harsh for the crimes committed, and lots of violence could have been avoided. The culprit may have just made a slight mistake, but yet they are heavily punished. One law is if a son strikes his father, his hands would be cut off (Doc C).
Hammurabi had some unjust codes that were harsh and unfair. For example, if a man had broken into another man’s house and were to break through the wall, they would whether get put to death and pierced or hung where they had broken the wall [law 21]. This punishment seems really harsh and rude because they could’ve just paid a certain amount of money and fixed the wall or something. Personally, I think that Hammurabi could be a little less harsh on the laws and be nicer about them because I have noticed that more of the harsher punishment went toward the woman and not the men. Woman and men should be treated the same way no matter what. That’s
Hammurabi’s code included some gruesome punishments, some that might be believed as unruly, but is still just. Hammurabi’s code was just in many ways pertaining to their time. These laws are not the oldest set, but they were possibly the most strict from the ancient world. The punishments for breaking some laws are different for the multiple classes on the social structure and genders. Also, during his time, Hammurabi was known more as a builder and conqueror than a law-giver. All in all, the laws abiding in Hammurabi’s code are just because of its personal injury and family laws.
Hammurabi’s code was a set of laws made by Hammurabi. They were the first written set of laws. There is a debate about if Hammurabi’s code was just or unjust. I think Hammurabi’s code was just. The codes were just, because it protected the weak, helped people in troubles, and scared people form breaking the codes.
Hammurabi’s Personal Injury law was unjust because If a man knocked out the eye of a free man, then his eye shall be knocked out. Another reason, If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and she loses the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver. Some people may claim Hammurabi’s code was just but actually it's not just because If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free men for a serious injury and caused his death, his hands shall be cut off. This is unjust because the surgeon was suppose to help the free man survive not cut his hands off when he is already dead.
The “Code of Hammurabi” is considered to be one of the most valuable finds of human existence. In fact its very existence created the basis for the justice system we have come to rely on today. The creation of “the Code” was a tremendous achievement for not only Babylonian society but for the entire Mesopotamian region as King Hammurabi was ruler over all of that area. Its conception can be considered to be the first culmination of the laws of different regions into a single, logical text. Hammurabi wanted to be an efficient ruler and realized that this could be achieved through the use of a common set of laws which applied to all territories and all citizens who fell under his rule. This paper will discuss the Hammurabi Code and the
The Code of Hammurabi was a strict, harsh, and unequal way of punishment that focused on current attainable penalties for Mesopotamian society. The society wasn’t religious, they did not have any affiliations with spiritual beings, which is why punishments were needed for the specific moment
Hammurabi's code was just, because it protected people and was fair. For most of the 282 laws in hammurabi's code they were in the best interest of helping and protecting the week, sick, poor, and the vast majority of babylonia. The laws were mostly fair to the people because usually the punishment was something of equal or greater harm than which the crime was committed. The only concern of mine is how harsh some laws were, because the punishment was way worse than the crime, but it was in a good cause so if the punishment was not death that the criminal was taught a good lesson, and if it was death the people didn't have to worry about the criminal that was killed because the criminal would be dead.
Have you ever wondered what it was like in the early times? Well hammurabi's code was way before you can imagine...about 38 centuries ago. Hammurabi's code wasn't just because of its family laws and its property laws. Over all hammurabi was just a cruel person and harmed people in different ways that some don't want to know about.
Was Hammurabi’s Code just? Hammurabi was the king of Babylonia, a kingdom in Mesopotamia, nearly 4,000 years ago. For part of his 42 years of rule Hammurabi had many wars, but over time his thoughts of war became thoughts of peace. This was when Hammurabi followed the command of Shamash, (god of justice) and made Hammurabi's code. Hammurabi had his code put all over the land he ruled. Hammurabi's 282 laws in his code were written in cuneiform (a wedge-shaped language) on a stele (a large pillar) Hammurabi’s Code was unjust based on evidence from his laws in family, personal injury, and property.
Imagine being expected to have a sibling, then a man beats on your mother, and the unborn baby dies. Does the man get any jail time? No, he just has to pay 10 shekels of silver. Imagine ridiculous punishments and laws like that from Hammurabi’s code still being used today. Hammurabi’s Code was definitely unjust; the laws are unfair to the accused, the victim, and to the society as a whole.
Hammurabi's code was unjust because the laws were unfair,and very strict. For example ,law number 6 states that if anyone steals the property of a temple he shall be put to death,and the one who receives the stolen item from him shall be put to death. This law is unjust because both of who stole it shall be put to death,and also the one who receives it,and if the one who receives it gives it to someone else. Another example is law number 48,this law says that if a man borrows money to plant his fields,and a storm has flooded his field he doesn't have to give back the money. This law is unjust because it is not the man's fault that the storm happened, so he has to give back the money. The final example is law number 260,this
Four thousand years ago, in the state of Babylonia, ruled a king named Hammurabi, Hammurabi made a set of two hundred eighty two laws name Hammurabi’s code, to protect the weak, but were they really just? Through my prospective these laws were not fair because they did not try to help the family solve its problems, instead it acted based on what happened, Hammurabi’s code destroyed/ruined personal property, and it encouraged personal injury.