Hammurabi's Code: Just or Unjust?

462 Words2 Pages
We all know about todays code of law. It’s morally right and unfair, but back then it wasn’t They had a set of laws called the Hammurabi’s Code. Hammurabi’s Code was unfair and unjust because it was cruel to humans, there’s more reasonable punishments that could have been made that were morally right, and they seemed arbitrary for the rule that was broken. First of all, humans are animals that have the ability to feel aka emotions. According to Law 218, a mans hands would be cut off if he accidentally killed a man during surgery, even if he didn’t mean to. That would put the surgeon in a lot of pain and that’s just cruel. It’s also cruel in a non physical way because they treated slaves as property. That was very unequal to the slaves. Nobody should be abused and beaten as much as the people back then did. The lesson is still learned regardless of the punishment, so there’s no point in injuring us to that extreme. That brings me to my next point. Life is very broad, there’s always multiple ways to go about matters. Usually, we’re not so limited when it comes to making choices regarding our lives. Law 21 states that a man who attempts to rob a house would be put to death. If that was a punishment today, many of us would be rioting for the man to have a different punishment. Teaching the man morals and making him learn his lesson in a way that’s not death would be more reasonable. Lastly, take a look at the punishments corresponding to the law broken. Law 195 says “If a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off”.Yes, that’s a horrid thing to do to your father, but it’s too extreme to have your hands cut off and it’s also cruel. There are scenarios where a son could have accidentally hurt their fathers, and there are also scenes where children regret it. Giving them a life without hands is basically killing them. We do everything with our hands.

More about Hammurabi's Code: Just or Unjust?

Open Document