Why Is Hammurabi Unjust

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.

One reason why Hammurabi’s code is unjust is that it doesn’t treat everyone the same. Law 196 states “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man, and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay ten shekels of silver”, while Law 199 states “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay two shekels of silver. This shows that the code thinks that free people are five times more valuable than slaves. In Document B, he says “that the strong may not injure the weak”. However, in truth, the strong (free men) are injuring the weak(slaves), because if someone wanted to hurt a pregnant women, they would have to pay one-fifth of the money that they would pay if they hurt a free pregnant woman if they hurt a slave-woman.

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 was just because of its personal injury laws. In law 209 it states, “If a man strikes the daughter of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb, he shall pay 10 shekels of silver.” (Doc E). This law is just because the free man is taking care of his daughter by making sure the man pays for what he caused. In law 213 it states, “If he has struck the slave-girl of a free man and causes her to lose the fruit of her womb,

Hammurabi’s code dealing with personal injury laws are fair. In law 199, it declares “If he has knocked out the eye of a slave… he shall pay half his value.” I believe that law is just, because if a man knocks someone's eye out then they should pay half of his value. In law 215, it declares “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on the body of a free man… and saves the man’s life, he shall receive 10 shekels of silver.” I believe that law 215 is just because he took time and used is knowledge to work on the guy and he saved his life, then he should get something in

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.

To begin with, the family laws in Hammurabi’s code are usually pretty unfair in the way they handle family disputes. One example of this is shown in Law 195 when the Code states, “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off”(Document C). This is unfair because it treats the son as lesser than the father since he gets a worse punishment than the original offense. Which shows that this law is an unbalanced punishment for the offense. Another example of an unfair law pertaining to family manners is when law 168 states, “If a man has determined to disinherit his son and has declared before the judge, “‘I cut off my son,’ the judge shall inquire into the son’s past, and, if the son has not committed a grave misdemeanor…, the father shall not disinherit his son”(Document C). This shows how a law can take something that should be decided by an individual, but instead is taken into a decision by the

But King Hammurabi has decided that if the surgeon has already caused one death, his hands shall be cut off so he cannot cause another death. Think about the best doctors in the world- even they may not have been able to save some patients' lives, but their hands are never cut off- they improve their medicines and processes and help more people. Another law that proves Hammurabi’s Code is unjust partially because of laws under Personal Injury is Law 196. Law 196 states,”If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out.” This is an one for one situation in which the man will get his eye knocked out if he ever knocks out the eye of a free man. The free man whose eye first got knocked out should receive money for medical bills, not the other man’s eye knocked out. He has no use for the offenders knocked out eye, even though the punishment is fair enough for the act. Alternatively, Law 199,” If he

Way back in the ancient mesopotamia around 1800 BC arose a leader named Hammurabi. He created a set of laws called The Code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi was unfair. In Hammurabi’s laws, it says on code number 196, “ If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.” This rule is not fair. What if the man that you poked his eye out was trying to kill you and you did that in self defense? Also it would not be fair if it was an accident. This is not the only law that is very unfair. There are many others such as law 205, “If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.” This is why the Code of Hammurabi were very unfair.

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.

But King Hammurabi has decided that if the surgeon has already caused one death, his hands shall be cut off so he cannot cause another death. Think about the best doctors in the world- even they may not have been able to save some patients lives, but their hands are never cut off- they improve their medicines and processes and help more people. Another law that proves Hammurabi’s Code is unjust partially because of laws under Personal Injury is Law 196. Law 196 states,”If a man has knocked out the eye of a free man, his eye shall be knocked out.” This is a one for one situation in which the man will get his eye knocked out if he ever knocks out the eye of a free man. The free man whose eye first got knocked out should receive money for medical bills, not the other man’s eye knocked out. He has no use for the offenders knocked out eye, even though the punishment is fair enough for the act. Alternatively, Law 199,” If he

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.

The code was created in 1792 B.C. and it had a total of 282 laws and they were organized by theme including, Family Life, Agriculture and Theft and Professional Standards. There are two areas of law where Hammurabi’s Code can be shown to be unjust. These are Family Law and Personal Injury Law.

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.