Hammurabi's Code: Just Or Bust?

An argument on aincent debate

Well, what do I think?

The answer is quite simple, really; mostly, yes. These laws are fair, maybe not in our time exactly, but almost definitely in ancient times. Read on to see exactly what I mean!

Slavery was normal at the time

First off, remember he was in b.c. times. Now, we haven't even gotten over our ancestors being in slavery, and only recently outlawed segregation. We had a WAR over this type of thing, just think about what they thought! They thought of slavery as normal, just as we used to! If you were taught that someone else was worse than you and didn't deserve to be treated fairly as a child, you would grow up that way. Hammurabi's decision to make slave victims less justified was the norm at the time.

An eye for an eye

My next argument is that the law really was "An eye for an eye"- literally. You gouged an eye, yours was gouged as well. If a man's strike causes abortion to an expecting mother you must pay the price. It is simple, and makes sense. But "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind", and a bit of redemption may be appreciable.


Like every good argument, mine must come to an end sooner or later. My conclusion I not that others are wrong, but that I strongly believe that Hammurabi had a method to his madness, most good, some not the greatest. I hope that I may have persuaded you to think the same, or at least see the other side of the spectrum, for lack of a better term.