Hammurabi: Righteous Rule Or Law
The idea of any rule being righteous is often questioned, since a righteous rule or law is very ambiguous . In the past, Hammurabi created the first complete set of rules called, Hammurabi’s Code, that was intense in some area’s , and too lenient in others. In some of his rules,he wasn’t fair to the accused, to the victim, and to the society in all his laws.
The accused should be punished enough to learn the lesson. Being harsh is necessary in some cases, but some cases harshness goes to the extreme. For instance as law 143,If she has not been discreet, has gone out, ruined her house, belittled her husband, she shall be drowned. Death is a punishment for too many laws, instead of drowning her. Why don't they divorce her leaving her no property …show more content…
Getting what the victim wants out of the accused is a failed object Hammurabi managed to hit. As in Hammurabi’s 195th law, without hands a child has no way of becoming an artisan or an merchant. The my dad wants respect from me, not for the me to becoming disabled. Next, killing someone doesn’t always make the circumstance fair to the victim. For instance, law 129, by binding the married lady with another man, they will die. Then what happens to the married man, and what if they had a child. Victim should gain what they lost ,not lose more things precious to them.
Changes to society Sometimes the punishments could traumatize the accused, which leads him to harm the society. Such as law 48, maybe the man thinks making an trench and planting is more than enough work. Thinking that this is unfair Other times the accused could be useful to society, but instead they punished him to no longer be useful. In law 218, a highly skilled surgeon got the luck of trying to save a person that damaged almost all vital organs, now the surgeon fails and loses his hands. Without hands the surgeon can not operate, and he can not of save hundreds of more lives .
Although Hammurabi’s code could be seen as just, but some ideas he has are thought out incorrectly. Overall Hammurabi’s laws can’t be said as righteous in every way, since they god of unjust must of work with the god of
The accused should be punished enough to learn the lesson. Being harsh is necessary in some cases, but some cases harshness goes to the extreme. For instance as law 143,If she has not been discreet, has gone out, ruined her house, belittled her husband, she shall be drowned. Death is a punishment for too many laws, instead of drowning her. Why don't they divorce her leaving her no property …show more content…
Getting what the victim wants out of the accused is a failed object Hammurabi managed to hit. As in Hammurabi’s 195th law, without hands a child has no way of becoming an artisan or an merchant. The my dad wants respect from me, not for the me to becoming disabled. Next, killing someone doesn’t always make the circumstance fair to the victim. For instance, law 129, by binding the married lady with another man, they will die. Then what happens to the married man, and what if they had a child. Victim should gain what they lost ,not lose more things precious to them.
Changes to society Sometimes the punishments could traumatize the accused, which leads him to harm the society. Such as law 48, maybe the man thinks making an trench and planting is more than enough work. Thinking that this is unfair Other times the accused could be useful to society, but instead they punished him to no longer be useful. In law 218, a highly skilled surgeon got the luck of trying to save a person that damaged almost all vital organs, now the surgeon fails and loses his hands. Without hands the surgeon can not operate, and he can not of save hundreds of more lives .
Although Hammurabi’s code could be seen as just, but some ideas he has are thought out incorrectly. Overall Hammurabi’s laws can’t be said as righteous in every way, since they god of unjust must of work with the god of