Compare And Contrast Plato And Hammurabi

709 Words3 Pages
What– according to Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Plato, Thucydides, Confucius, and the Koran– makes a good society? Thanks to the long lasting scriptures of these ancient thinkers and rulers, today, we are fortunate to be given the knowledge to understand the thoughts of sages; who lived thousands of years before us. Through myths, poetry and legal codes, these wise men express their philosophy on what it takes to create a good society. It is evident in all the texts, a presence of a Supreme Being or “God”, who dictates to the people how to behave, along with its respective consequences. They call themselves to be multiple reverent figures such as “heroes”, “guardians” or the “man enlightened with the true” for the well being of the people. For all…show more content…
Respectively one wrote rules to defend the oppressed, and the other posted ideas that lead the creation of a good life for man. It is clear that both texts assume the natural existence of injustice in society. Therefore, in order to promote the welfare of the people, there must be a higher being to guide them. Furthermore, they both appeal to authority in opposite ways: Hammurabi as the “Perfect King” reminds the reader that he is in complete power to enforce each of the laws in his code. On the other hand Plato takes a passive and serene approach, arguing that philosophers shall be kings because of their sound understanding of ethics and morality. The difference of approaches is immense, one ruled by a king proposing rules, for instance #196: “If a man destroys the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye.” and the other by enlightening the people with knowledge and ethics to discover a better life. Their assumptions about the world for the most part are opposed; brute force and the power of wisdom. The most intriguing fact is that Hammurabi was able to put his philosophy into practice and thrived, while Plato’s ideals were feasible but never went beyond being good
Open Document