Who decided what was right or wrong and how order would be made in ancient societies? There couldn 't have just been a constitution that everyone followed in the beginning of time. People of ancient times must have come to some agreement to keep everyone well governed to prevent chaos and destruction to society. While undefined, I believe that most theorists addressed social order by defining social rules and ways of living that were believed to be fair for all. Such theorists as Aristotle, Hammurabi and Machiavelli were some of the many who had their own opinions on how the believed, “Government” per-say was created and how it should be ran. Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for …show more content…
But the chances they have nothing at all in common is impossible seeing that the two people live in the same state giving them at least one similarity. Shortly after, Aristotle discusses how possessions in the state come into play such as who owns what and whether or not things should be shared. Along with each statement will usually fine about two or three different scenarios as to how the situations could pan out. In this case Aristotle states that, (1) the soil may be appropriated, but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock; this is the practice of some nations. Or (2), the soil may be common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce divided among individuals for their private use; this is a form of common property which is said to exist among certain barbarians. Which could be …show more content…
The Code of Hammurabi has a slightly different way of describing the way a society should maintain stability and avoid chaos. In this code of conduct it is more on the lines of something similar to the Bill of Rights where each idea is stated in form of a law. For example, in the 15th amendment of The Code it staes “15: If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates [to escape], he shall be put to death.” It is a listed set of laws followed by a consequence whether it is minor or as harsh as the death penalty. If such harsh punishments were informed, I believe the law makers or theorists saw it as a type of scare which would prevent people from committing the crime. There are those people who do break the law and make stupid decisions, but it would keep the amount of people making stupid decisions and breaking the law to a
Hammurabi’s code was based on the saying ‘an eye for an eye’. This means that the retribution for the crime would roughly fit the severity of the crime. For example, if someone poked someone’s eye out, someone would poke that someone’s eye out. I think this is fair because it doesn’t make sense any other way. For instance, if one was jailed ten years for a minor theft (a purse, a bike, etc.) and someone else was jailed ten years for a major theft (robbing the bank, stealing a valuable painting, etc.), that wouldn’t be reasonable. In Hammurabi’s ‘an eye for an eye’ theory, all the punishments are equal to the crime, which is very practical. Most of his laws are based on this.
... against him. With regard to the second objection, Aristotle can begin by accepting that whereas it is indeed true that the parts prior to the whole or the polis - the single associations, respectively - do not contain the virtue for the achievement of eudaimonia in themselves alone, it is through the conjunction of them all that the capacity for this virtue emerges. Indeed, the parts of the city-state are not to be taken distinctively. For instance, whereas five separate individuals alone may not have the capacity to each lift a 900 lbs piano, the five together, nonetheless, can be said to be able to accomplish this. Similarly, it is the city-state with all of its parts that can achieve the good life. In any case, it remains that humankind is essentially political since it fulfills the function of reason, and this function is best performed under the city-state.
When Hammurabi generated his ideas of Code and leadership he generated what he believed was best for the Mesopotamian people. What wasn’t clear to us, is what influenced his thinking. According to history channel the name "Hammu” means family, while rapi, means “great.” Taking that into context we can understand how some of the laws were created by the 6th king of the Babylonian empire. Family, truth, and “equality” was implemented to create the world’s first set of written moral. However by creating “morality” and civilized manner
However that was not the only thing that could be seen clearly through this conversation he wrote. Also in bedded in this dialogue was Socrates teachings. Plato expresses Socrates habits of searching “every corner of the city,” to find answers to his unending questions. The Republic allows the reader to see how Plato was able to use his knowledge to extend the discussion of Western Political Thought. As tradition follows, Plato’s student Aristotle also learned and developed what his tutor taught him. Aristotle was the third of the most infamous philosophers who _____. His ideas were captured in a collection of essays titled Politics. However, this time he would even question the original Greek belief that Democracy was the best way to govern correctly and fairly. Just as Plato believed Aristotle knew that tyranny ruled through, “private interest” as he
A few years into Hammurabi’s reign over Babylon he decided to compose the first written set of law in order to make the ancient people aware of the consequences of their unlawful acts (Hammurabi). This promulgation of a new code of Babylonian law was written on a stele, which is a large stone monument in the center of town. It consists of 282 laws (Hammurabi). The repercussions of the laws varied depending on one’s social status, but they were still very harsh based on modern standards. Hammurabi’s code has an overall simple concept. This concept is similar to the well-known phrase, “an eye for an eye” (“The Law of Retaliation” philosophy, invented by Lex Talionis). If someone has stolen something the robbers hand shall be cut off or they would be punished in a manner consequent to the action (Hammurabi). But, if someone in a lower social class harmed a person in the higher class than they would be put to death. Although, if a person in a higher social class harmed a person in a lower class then they would most likely be fined (Hammurabi). The Code of Hammurabi was written dominantly in the precursor writing to Hieroglyphics, known as Cuneiform. Cuneiform is a wedge-shaped writing that was common to the people of Babylon (Hamm...
Hammurabi’s code was unjust! To support this a couple codes of law that Hammurabi enforced were number one, “if a son struck his father his hand will be cut off” this law demonstrates the Hammurabi’s code was unjust because this is showing unfair advantages to the use of power of him/her. Number two is, “if he has struck a slave he will have to pay half value for him” this code proves Hammurabi’s code was unjust because slaves no matter how bad they’ve been should be treated fairly just like every individual! These couple laws were unjust because of the punishments and the power used after the crime was committed.
As you can see, Hammurabi's code was very well unjust, and although many of the laws were cruel and in fair, some laws were made for good reasons and were set to protect citizens. But otherwise, Hammurabi's laws were in fair, and are luckily no longer used. In conclusion the laws of the ancient Babylonia king were
The author of the Code also makes some key assumptions while writing his laws. Hammurabi must assume that the members of his kingdom have the same values and morals that he does. He writes as if everyone will agree with each law written, and makes no provision for members of society to disagree with him. Hammurabi also assumes that the punishment he prescribes will be enough to deter crime and prevent repeat offenders. When prescribing the incentives given to doctors, Hammurabi made assumptions about how much money it would take to encourage doctors to practice medicine and shipbuilders to build ships.
Hammurabi’s code gives an insight on the strict and unjust lives many Babylonian’s lived. Women were an item to men, and the wealthy overpowered the slaves. Despite the fact that there was no rightfulness within the laws, Hammurabi’s code indicates the presence of a stable family structure, a system of trading, as well as a development into the medical field. Many of the laws that were established in ancient Babylon, can be seen dealt today in modern America. Being one of the earliest pieces of text, Hammurabi’s considers thoughts of punishment towards the criminals, which is a system we have adapted
What is Justice? Justice can mean many things,but in this situation it means a fair treatment or a punishment for someone's actions they choose to make. The Hammurabi Code was made by the one and only Hammurabi!Hammurabi finished to Code of Laws after his 38th year of his rule.The code has 282 laws on it.He made the Code of Laws in Babylonian and he made it because the god (Shamash) told him to and he did it because so “the strong might not injure the weak,in order to protect the Widows and Orphans.Hammurabi's Code was mostly unfair because they treated the people and animals unfairly.
of sharing in a community. In Politics II 1, Aristotle begins his assessment by stating that, "We must begin, at the natural starting point of this
Although, both Aristotle’s books VIII and IX contain some of the similar information dealing with backgrounds of friendship; it breakdowns the meaning and knowledge of each friendship and how it counteract against the other one. However, in book VIII he clarifies the difference between the three types of friendships: utility, pleasure, and goodness. Book VIII distinguishes details about how the friendships counteract with each other, he describes the connection among friendship, the community, and the political aspect of the constitutions. He also describes the political constitutions view of how one should act when dealing with the law. Book IX vivid the key points of friendship as Aristotle gives a more constructive outline on the terms
The central concern of theorists is to establish a form of constitution that a society will likely succeed. Political success according to Aristotle is determined by the happiness of the citizens of the society. Aristotle’s vision of a perfect government all begins with the character of the citizenry leading to the happiness of a whole state. Through his studies, Aristotle came to the conclusion that in order to achieve a perfect constitution it is essential to break down a society into parts and observe each individually. Aristotle’s teachings were stressed on moderation in government and in life. The importance of human character lead to his interpretation of happiness and a perfect society.
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
Philosophers are all known for questioning and exploring Ideals; taking a look at all options and what is most important. While Aristotle and Plato both take a plunge into the unknowns of a political state, Aristotle demonstrates a state for individuals, to rule as equals, contrary to Plato’s strict utopian structure and group over individual hierarchy view of the ideal state.