Hammurabi's Code: Was It Just?

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.

Drowning, cutting off hands, and hangings were all punishments in Hammurabi’s code. Given to him by Shamash, the god of justice, the code was carved on a stone stele and consisted of 282 laws. The laws were just for Hammurabi’s time period, but they would not be considered just by today’s standards. Compared to people today, Hammurabi and his subjects have a more impulsive mindset; their society is adverse to the works of society today. In that case it is expected that certain components, like laws, will be viewed differently over time.

Hammurabi’s codes were just and sometimes unjust. They would have harsh punishments and sometimes not as harsh punishments. For example, Hammurabi would have harsh punishments like, blinding someone and throwing them in the water, or if someone were to rob some ones house and put a hole through the wall to get in they would whether get killed and pierced or hung in the hole in the wall that they created. Also he would have not as harsh punishments like, giving people money or cutting off their hands. Hammurabi had a lot harsher punishments for woman that did not obey the codes and not as harsh punishments for men that did not obey the laws.

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.

Mesopotamia, “the Land between Rivers,” was one of the greatest and the oldest ancient civilizations of the world. This civilization flourished around 3000 B.C. on the piece of fertile land, now known as Iraq, between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. Before 1792 B.C., the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia were not united and constantly clashed in turmoil and warfare. In 1792 B.C., King Hammurabi conquered and merged the neighboring city states of ancient Mesopotamia, creating a Babylonian empire and becoming the sixth king of its capitol city, Babylon. During his reign, Hammurabi established law and order and funded irrigation, defense, and religious projects. He personally took care of and governed the administration. In

Hammurabi’s code was fair because of the Family Laws. In law 148, it states “In a marriage if a spouse dies, then the remaining spouse remarries the living spouse the deceased must dwell in the house that they built

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.

Around 4,000 years ago Hammurabi’s code was created by Hammurabi the king of Babylonia with the goal of bringing justice to his kingdom. He even claimed that Shamash the god of justice commanded him to make these laws. Then his laws were carved into large stone’s called steles, written in the ancient cuneiform written, and then put up throughout all major communities of Babylonia. However, these ancient laws were not fair for everyone in his kingdom. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust because the laws pertaining to family life, property law, and personal injury were unfair.

How would people feel if they had to follow the laws of Hammurabi’s code? Hammurabi was the king of Babylonia. Hammurabi started being king around 3500 BCE, and Hammurabi made 282 laws. Hammurabi’s Code was unjust based on the evidence from the codes Personal law, Property law, and Family law. Was Hammurabi’s code just?

The Code of Hammurabi is one of history’s oldest and best – preserved written law which appeared in Mesopotamia around 1760 BCE. “It consists of customary norms that were collected toward the end of his reign and inscribed on a diorite stela set up in Babylon's temple of Marduk, the god of Babylonia. The 282 chapters include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade, and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), as well as criminal law (assault, theft) and civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and the circumstances of the offenses. ” These laws considered words which sent by the Sun god Shamash to Hammurabi. Therefore, people believed that as long as they obey the laws, then they obey the god’s words.

The code of Hammurabi is the most remarkable and complete code of ancient law that we have. The code can be found on a stele, a stone slab usually to commemorate military victories in the ancient world. His code, a collection of 282 laws and standards, stipulated rules for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice. Most punishments resulting of death or loss of limb if a law was broken. The edicts ranged from family law to professional contracts and administrative law, often outlining different standards of justice for the three classes of Babylonian society. The Hammurabi Code was issued on the three classes of Babylonian Society, property owners, freemen and slaves. It was important as it organized the most civilized empire at that times , and Hammurabi made many copies of it and distributed them in the most important cities of the empire , so it represented a great progress to the human

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

People often assume that kings always make laws that are right and just for all people, but if that is looked into, is it really true? Not necessarily, at least in the case of Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi was a king in Babylon during 1792 BCE who created 282 laws which were printed on a stele. These later became known as Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi’s Code was made by King Hammurabi who wanted ultimately to protect the weak- such as widows and orphans- from the strong, and who wanted fairness throughout his lands. So, was Hammurabi’s Code fair to all people? Hammurabi’s code was unjust because of evidence supported by laws about Personal Injury, Property, and Family.

Nearly 4,000 years ago, a man named Hammurabi became king of babylonia. He ruled for 42 years. During that time, he became the ruler of much of Mesopotamia, which had an estimated population of 1,000,000 people or more. In his 38th year, Hammurabi made a set of 282 laws called a code that he had engraved on a stone stele. He did this to bring order and fairness to all. There has been some debate about the justness of this code. In my opinion, Hammurabi’s code was not just because of it’s family law, property law, and personal injury law.

Hammurabi's code was based on the saying ‘an eye for an eye'. This means that the retribution for the crime would roughly fit the severity of the crime. For example, if someone poked someone's eye out, someone would poke that someone's eye out. I think this is fair because it doesn't make sense any other way. For instance,