Compare And Contrast Plato And Hammurabi

About 4,000 years ago, Hammurabi, the King of Babylon, made 282 laws to gain peace. In my opinion, I think that Hammurabi’s Code wasn’t just because it shows that is hurt family, it made people lose some kind of property, and it depended who you were in order to come up with a consequence for personal injury.

Illustrate in your mind living during the 1750’s B.C.E and living in Babylon. The king and ruler, Hammurabi had multiple laws to rule this society, to make sure the widows and orphans were safe and that the weak were protected from the strong. Hammurabi ruled Babylon for about 32 years. He wrote laws using the writing system, Cuneiform. Some of these laws were harsh. Maybe too harsh. Were these laws just? Was Hammurabi’s code just? Hammurabi’s code was not just because the personal injury laws did not protect all people equally, property laws were harsh and not protecting people enough, and the Family laws should allow people to be with whoever they want to be with.

“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found against the wrong.”(Theodore Roosevelt) To start off let’s talk about Hammurabi, a king not many people knew about. Thanks to clay writing tablets found by archaeologist, we know some things about him. Some things we know about Hammurabi is that he was a king for 42 years! In addition to that he was a king of a city state in Mesopotamia called, Babylon. Something else about Hammurabi is that he took power in 1792 BCE. Hammurabi also developed a code totaling an astonishing 282 laws. My question I need to answer is, Was Hammurabi’s Code Fair? There are three areas of law in Hammurabi’s Code which can be proven to be just. These three areas of law are family law, personal injury law, and property law.

Hammurabi's code and the modern laws have several similarities and differences. For example, they are both intended to maintain order in society. However, Hammurabi’s code is far more violent than modern law. Also, they have different ways of handling things, different punishments, and different social structure.

Laws were as important in Hammurabi 's time as they are today because laws keep people safe and keeps everything fair. Hammurabi was a famous Babylonian king who ruled over Mesopotamia. He created the first set of written laws in his 38th year of his reign called the law code. He did this because he wanted to keep peace and order over Mesopotamia even if the laws were harsh. Many people are arguing over if Hammurabi 's code is just or unjust. After close analysis, the law code of Hammurabi was just in the area of property law.

The version of Socrates presented in both The Apology, Crito, and The Republic could very well be two different versions of Socrates as presented by Plato. However, both versions of Socrates have one thing in common: they both value the importance of philosophy and they both defend philosophy as something that is important to humanity.

The Babylonian king Hammurabi, who expanded the city-state of Babylon across the Euphrates River, proclaimed one of the earliest and most complete ancient legal codes B.C. Hammurabi was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC. His father, Sin-Muballit, who abdicated due to failing health, preceded Hammurabi. He is known today for his law code that supported “an eye for a eye” and the civil rights he gave to members of the society other than men. Hammurabi set a strong foundation for our society today, with his rules and family relationship changes, he did it by making a set in stone law code, and giving the women of ancient Babylonia more civil rights in marriage.

What is justice? This is the crucial question that Plato attempts to answer in his dialogue, The Republic. He conjures up an allegory that justice can be found in a person, and a person can represent a city. Thus, his entire dialogue focuses on this ‘just’ city and the mechanics of how the city would operate. His dialogue covers a myriad of topics about justice in addition to the human soul, politics, goodness and truth. In his discussion over how the citizens should be educated and how to control their knowledge, the question of the ethical and realistic expectations of the city. However, the problem, or downfall, of Plato’s city is its foundation. A foundation of lies. Plato’s web of lies, falsehoods and manipulation make the entire city

In the Republic, Plato confers with other philosophers about the true definition of justice. Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus relay their theories on justice to Plato, when he inquires as to what justice is. Cephalus believes only speaking the truth and paying one’s debts is the correct definition of justice (The Republic, Book I). However, Plato refutes this with an example of a friend who has lost his wits and would be caused harm by repayment of a debt. This leads to Polemarchus’ view on justice, doing harm to one’s enemies and helping one’s friends. Plato contests this view on justice because he believes doing harm to anyone would be an injustice. This theory leads to their conclusion the just man is one who is useful. Thrasymachus refers to justice in an egoistical manner, saying “justice is in the interest of the stronger” (The Republic, Book I). He believes injustice is virtuous and wise and justice is vice and ignorance, but Socrates disagrees with this statement as believes the opposing view. As a result of continual rebuttals against their arguments,

The Code of Hammurabi was written by King Hammurabi and were the first set of laws to ever be created. Hammurabi created 282 laws, that set standards in his empire and in ancient Mesopotamia. Hammurabi made it clear that the laws were not only to equalize society but also establish fairness and also protect the weak from the strong. However, according to the laws, the punishment for men, women, rich, and the poor, were all different; leading that he made the laws unfair. The women of Mesopotamia had a series of laws where it clearly shows they were classified as property. Some laws had harsh punishments and other laws you just had to pay for what you did. Hammurabi clearly showed the opposite of equal among the social classes, by favoring the rich and making it harder for the poor. With the different social classes,

The Judgments of Hammurabi are a set of laws that were written by a god. The laws were put in place “to promote the welfare of the people, to cause justice to prevail in the land, and so the strong might not oppress the weak.” The Tale of The Eloquent Peasant, depicts how a peasant has been robbed of his goods and how he eloquently appeals to the king for justice to be served. Both articles discuss; the division of a society’s social class, how gods/kings interpret justice and family relationships within the law.

Plato believes that people are inherently good and they will do what is morally right and just for society. They will earn their right to power and ensure fairness for all to prevent the tyrants from trying to take control. Plato mentions three main arguments regarding

The roles and social status of women in ancient times are being described by many well-known playwrights and poets. Yet, different works shows different opinions towards “women power”. In this essay, I am going to compare Homer’s Iliad and The Code of Hammurabi along with Sophocles’ Antigone.

If you travel 7000 miles to a new kingdom but once you get there, you walk into someone getting their fingers chopped off, what are you going to do? Back in the days of King Hammurabi, this is very likely to happen to anyone that broke one of this cruel King’s laws. King Hammurabi became the ruler of Babylon, a small city-state in Mesopotamia, in 1792 BCE. Hammurabi took the place of his father, Sin-Muballit, after he died from health problems. Hammurabi claims to have gotten his 282 laws from the god of justice, Shamash. Were Hammurabi’s Laws Just? That is the question we are going to be talking about throughout this essay. I will explain whether or not I think the laws are just. The definition of the word “just” is fair, therefore I will be explaining if I think the laws are fair or unfair. In my opinion, Hammurabi’s laws were unfair to the citizens of the civilization. The laws were very cruel, unnecessary, and very extra. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasoning for my thoughts on Hammurabi’s laws.

With the help of laws that had punishments like loosing a hand or an eyeball, looking back into Babylonian society was made a lot easier. These laws were created by the king of the city-state Babylon around 1792 BCE, Hammurabi. His reasoning for enforcing the laws, known as Hammurabi’s code, was to protect the weak and those who could not help themselves (doc B). He created 282 laws, and carved them onto a stele, a pillar-like stone. The multiple steles, he created and placed around the kingdom, consisted of a carving of him with Shamash, the god of justice, a prologue, the written laws and an epilogue (doc A). Hammurabi’s code includes laws whose punishments range from death to receiving shekels of silver. Since the repercussions are either very extreme or relatively fair, Hammurabi’s code is both just