Hammurabi's Code Just Or Unjust?
Hammurabi’s Code Just or Unjust?
Almost 4000 there was a king named Hammurabi. He ruled over a small city-state called Babylon. Hammurabi Ruled for 42 years, but the first 30 were pretty uneventful and he only had power over Babylon which even though it was the capitol of Babylonia was pretty small. But the last 12 were when things got more interesting. Hammurabi devised a plan so that he would have almost absoulute power and even after he died he would have millions of people still following him. So he made a list of laws called Hammurabi’s code which were the first ever set of written laws. Now many people loved Hammurabi and many more hated him. But, the question still remains…was Hammurabi’s code just or unjust?
I do not believe …show more content…
For example, in law 21 “if a man has broken through a wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death, and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made.” This law is to prevent robbery but, to be hung in town wasn’t enough for Hammurabi. He wanted everyone to know that if they robbed a house that they would have the same punishment. This punishment is very unusual and seemingly very random. Also in law 218,”If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death…his hands shall be cut off.” Now this law is meant to not only “justify” the man’s death by punishing the surgeon. But also to “protect” all other citizens because now the surgeon can no longer operate on anyone else. But having your hands cut off is still a very unfair punishment for an accidental death during …show more content…
One law states that if a son hits his father then his hand would be cut off, but it says nothing about if the father hit the son first which would then be self-defense so that is not protecting the weak from the strong. There is also another law that says if someone borrows money from someone else to plant crops and then their crops are flooded then they do not have to pay them back that year. While this is better for the man whose crops flooded the other guy is still out money so that’s not protecting him either.
In conclusion I do not believe that Hammurabi’s code is Just because of three basic reasons. It was unequal to slaves, it had cruel and unusual punishments, and it dint really protect the weak. But they were people who loved Hammurabi’s code and people who still today argue it was just. Although some people still support it I do nit thi8nk that it was just at all. So, to answer the question once and for all Hammurabi’s code just or unjust?
Almost 4000 there was a king named Hammurabi. He ruled over a small city-state called Babylon. Hammurabi Ruled for 42 years, but the first 30 were pretty uneventful and he only had power over Babylon which even though it was the capitol of Babylonia was pretty small. But the last 12 were when things got more interesting. Hammurabi devised a plan so that he would have almost absoulute power and even after he died he would have millions of people still following him. So he made a list of laws called Hammurabi’s code which were the first ever set of written laws. Now many people loved Hammurabi and many more hated him. But, the question still remains…was Hammurabi’s code just or unjust?
I do not believe …show more content…
For example, in law 21 “if a man has broken through a wall [to rob] a house, they shall put him to death, and pierce him, or hang him in the hole in the wall which he has made.” This law is to prevent robbery but, to be hung in town wasn’t enough for Hammurabi. He wanted everyone to know that if they robbed a house that they would have the same punishment. This punishment is very unusual and seemingly very random. Also in law 218,”If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death…his hands shall be cut off.” Now this law is meant to not only “justify” the man’s death by punishing the surgeon. But also to “protect” all other citizens because now the surgeon can no longer operate on anyone else. But having your hands cut off is still a very unfair punishment for an accidental death during …show more content…
One law states that if a son hits his father then his hand would be cut off, but it says nothing about if the father hit the son first which would then be self-defense so that is not protecting the weak from the strong. There is also another law that says if someone borrows money from someone else to plant crops and then their crops are flooded then they do not have to pay them back that year. While this is better for the man whose crops flooded the other guy is still out money so that’s not protecting him either.
In conclusion I do not believe that Hammurabi’s code is Just because of three basic reasons. It was unequal to slaves, it had cruel and unusual punishments, and it dint really protect the weak. But they were people who loved Hammurabi’s code and people who still today argue it was just. Although some people still support it I do nit thi8nk that it was just at all. So, to answer the question once and for all Hammurabi’s code just or unjust?