law and morality
Law and Morality
1 Lecture 1
Ancient Athens (3rd-4th century BC)
Country on its own, city had a border like a wall around it
3 ways of organizing this rules
1. The king decides it (monarchy)
2. Handful of rich people make a decision in a closed committee
3. Democracy (small number of rich people, not everyone necessarily, but broader number of people
Athens known as a democracy
Average citizen played a central role in making the laws what they are
There are many court sessions regularly (heliaia)
Democracy comes from the origin of western
David cohen paints a very different picture
Describes the society as a constant blood feud
Threat: will democracy become a blood fued? Will public become a terrorizing state?
There is no official state in the way we recognize them today, there is no police to go to
Everyone was basically defend themselves
There is no crown prosecution
Practice of law was initiated by the citizens
If you wanted to invade another city, you would prose that in a court and try to get all the other families to join you
Foreign policy, criminal law was decided in open courts
The system worked, only if the citizens brought these law suits and kept each other in line
Since the average person is doing that, and there is no state, the laws were unwritten, the laws were on a stone on the side of the mountain
Very traditional society (custom)
No mean for profession training
Small society
Trial: make a speech, make a speech, call witness, call witness, vote by jury
No cross examination
No standard of evidence
Evidence: facts that both sides agree too
Gossip was considered evidence back in the day
Trial was very short
If someone lied, you can bring them into another trial and sue them
Since truth and facts didn’t matter so much, what did matter?
Character assessment: Athenians would vote down the “loser” and go against him, and vote for the stronger person
Evaluating the better character, is more important (what is
1 Lecture 1
Ancient Athens (3rd-4th century BC)
Country on its own, city had a border like a wall around it
3 ways of organizing this rules
1. The king decides it (monarchy)
2. Handful of rich people make a decision in a closed committee
3. Democracy (small number of rich people, not everyone necessarily, but broader number of people
Athens known as a democracy
Average citizen played a central role in making the laws what they are
There are many court sessions regularly (heliaia)
Democracy comes from the origin of western
David cohen paints a very different picture
Describes the society as a constant blood feud
Threat: will democracy become a blood fued? Will public become a terrorizing state?
There is no official state in the way we recognize them today, there is no police to go to
Everyone was basically defend themselves
There is no crown prosecution
Practice of law was initiated by the citizens
If you wanted to invade another city, you would prose that in a court and try to get all the other families to join you
Foreign policy, criminal law was decided in open courts
The system worked, only if the citizens brought these law suits and kept each other in line
Since the average person is doing that, and there is no state, the laws were unwritten, the laws were on a stone on the side of the mountain
Very traditional society (custom)
No mean for profession training
Small society
Trial: make a speech, make a speech, call witness, call witness, vote by jury
No cross examination
No standard of evidence
Evidence: facts that both sides agree too
Gossip was considered evidence back in the day
Trial was very short
If someone lied, you can bring them into another trial and sue them
Since truth and facts didn’t matter so much, what did matter?
Character assessment: Athenians would vote down the “loser” and go against him, and vote for the stronger person
Evaluating the better character, is more important (what is