Incentives for Following Ancient Laws

Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code are two sets of laws and rules written in Babylon and Ancient Israel that were designed to guide the populations on how to live their lives.  These two codes consist of laws and punishments concerning crimes, agricultural life, social conflicts, and business ethics. Like codes of laws today, the purposes of Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code were to create organization and maintain order in society.  The two codes shared many themes and values, but differed in their means of achieving societal order.

One of the common themes in Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code is the value of “an eye for an eye. ” For every transgression one commits, one is to be punished in the same way.  If one is to murder, he shall be killed. If one is to steal, he is to give up money. In Hammurabi’s code, “if a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken” (laws 196 – 197). Similarly, a quote in the Mosaic code that reflects this value is, “show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut. 19:16-21). Both Hammurabi’s Code and the Mosaic Code state that punishments should be equally as serious as the crimes committed. One deserves to pay in the same way he harmed another.

Is the similarity of values between these two codes of laws coincidental? I believe not. Evidence exists that at some point in time, Jews living in Babylon immigrated to Israel and brought values that they had been exposed to in Babylon with them.  Hammurabi lived in the 1700’s BCE.  The Mosaic Code was established in the late 1400’s BCE. The values derived from Hammurabi’s code, such as “an eye for an eye,” likely influenced the way that the Mosaic Code was written.  This is an example of cultural diffusion that affected the ways the laws for the Ancient Israelites were written.

Although similar in many values and punishments, Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic Code differed in an important respect. Hammurabi’s code was focused on punishing wrong-doers as a way to keep people from breaking these laws.  Almost all transgressions noted in Hammurabi’s code were supposed to be punished with death. The purpose was to frighten the Babylonians from committing crimes. This way, society could remain organized.

Rather than solely emphasizing harsh punishments as the motivation for following laws, the Mosaic code gave an explanation for why its laws were beneficial to society. In other words, as opposed to threats alone, the Mosaic Code established a set of moral behaviors for followers that supported the adherence to the laws themselves.  For example, one law stated that “if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.” The first part of this quote taught the importance of honor and truth in society.  This is a value that the Mosaic Code attempted to teach all of its followers.  Although the second part of the quote gave a punishment for the crime, the last part of the quote suggested that if these rules were to be followed, society will rid itself evil.  The purpose of this was to supply society with a common moral code and understanding of good and evil. In other words, the laws in the Mosaic Code taught its followers how to live moral lives and therefore respect why the laws were in place. Because society would then understand why these laws were written, they would be more respected and followed.  

Cultural diffusion blended values from Babylonian society into the legal structure of Ancient Israel.   Both Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic Code contain laws and punishments that cover all aspects of society.  However, while Hammurabi’s code strictly used fear of death to demonstrate the importance of its laws, the Mosaic Code attempted to establish a common morality among its followers that would result in a greater appreciation and respect for its rules.  

Socrates' Respect for the Justice System

This past week, we read a document titled The Last Days of Socrates (Crito) that described a conversation between Socrates and Crito in prison the day before Socrates was to be killed.  In his conversation, Crito begs Socrates to escape prison and to continue teaching Athenians despite his conviction for corrupting the youth. However, Socrates refuses and is too stubborn to leave with Crito.

Socrates’ decision to remain in jail is primarily based on his respect for law and the judicial system in Athens.  He believes that he should not undermine the justice system by despite his disagreement with his sentence. Crito believes that Socrates is wrongfully convicted and would better serve society as a teacher rather than as a martyr on behalf of the judicial system. He explains that it is only fair that Socrates should have the right to escape.

I believe that both of these arguments are extremely logical and the conflict is not easy to solve.  So, I pose the question, if one disagrees with a judicial judgment, is it right for him/her to ignore the judgment (and to escape as in the case of Socrates), or is it better as a believer in an accountable government to demonstrate respect for the justice system? In other words, do the ends of helping society (by teaching) and escaping punishment like Socrates could have done justify the means of undermining the justice system and in turn challenging its legitimacy?  

I cannot deny the fact that Socrates deserved to escape, raise his children, continue teaching, and question the ideas of powerful men in Athens who did not support his thinking.  It makes perfect sense for Crito, a close friend of Socrates, to beg him to escape prison because his conviction is unfair and cruel.  However, I believe that Socrates, a man whose priority is to approve Athenian society, makes the right choice by remaining in prison.

I feel strongly about this point because in the long run, it seems most honorable and beneficial to society to comply with how the Athenian justice system had decided Socrates’ fate.  By publically undermining the decision to convict him, he would have shown that any imprisoned individual who felt he/she was innocent, deserved the right to escape. This sounds like quite the un-Socrates-ish thing to do.  If Socrates had the best interests of Athens in mind, he certainly would not jeopardize its justice system.

In a broader perspective, if a respected role model and teacher in society were to spread the belief that the justice system did not need to be strictly followed, this could lead to major chaos within society.  Crime rates could shoot up and faith in the justice system would drop. If people no longer believed that the justice system served and protected the citizens of a society properly, it is likely that not many would abide by its rules. 

It may be righteous and selfless to remain in prison to improve trust and faith in the justice system, but it is easier said than done. If one were to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, I believe that it would be very likely that he/she would escape prison given the opportunity.  It is not a selfish decision for an individual to believe that he/she deserves to be free if he/she is innocent.  It is not inhumane for one to put his/her own health before that of the justice system.

This goes to show how unique of a man Socrates was.  Throughout his life, he worked and taught with the intention of improving life in Athens. Until the day he was killed, he was dedicated to strengthening organization and morality in Athenian life. 

The Pros of Human Rights

            I believe that the generally accepted belief in natural human rights has allowed our society to remain organized and moral. I would argue that because the idea of inalienable human rights is so deeply rooted in our laws and societal structures, our nation would live in chaos if the belief were not universally shared.

            The idea of natural human rights keeps our nation morally in check. Inalienable rights prevent unfair persecution.  They create a boundary that prohibits people from impinging on other peoples’ rights. They draw a bright line between what behavior is acceptable and what behavior defies the shared moral code.

I would argue that in a world where people do not share a belief in natural human rights, our system of law and order would not be effective. Some citizens might feel that they have the right to break laws and to treat others inhumanely because they are superior. Leaders may attempt to govern with absolute power because they would not have to respect the rights of the governed. Lawmakers could pass laws that deny a certain group access to basic services and the ability to provide for their needs. Without a system of law based on natural rights that everyone must follow, I believe our nation would be barbaric.

            Not only does this idea enforce a moral code and maintain order in our society, but it gives countries around the world a reason to connect.  The worldwide belief in human rights allows nations around the globe to work together to end human rights violations and to enforce a global moral code. For example, the genocide in Darfur brought countries together to collectively fight for the inalienable rights of the victims.  The belief in human rights creates a basis for countries to share common morals and standards for the treatment of humans.  

The Inevitability of Natural Rights

This past week in class, we were asked to discuss where and why we believe the idea of natural human rights started and whether human rights actually exist. As we circled the room, sharing our opinions and views on the topic, I began to realize that the development and spread of the idea of natural human rights was inevitable, regardless of whether or not they are real.  In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people throughout history believed that humans had natural rights such as the right to freedom and to pursue happiness, because there would always be someone to support this belief and there would always be people to follow it.  

Why would there always be someone to support the idea of natural human rights? I believe that as soon as social hierarchies were established and individuals were cast to the lower social classes, the members of lower classes were motivated to gain equality. The less powerful in society needed a way to prove that they deserved the same rights and treatment as anyone else. Armed with the belief that all humans possess natural rights, these groups challenged the leadership that seemed unfair and demanded the same rights as those who sat on higher rungs of the hierarchy. The belief in natural rights even influenced some to establish new communities and nations that would pride themselves on giving citizens equal rights and opportunities to achieve their goals.

One example of a nation that used and uses the belief in inalienable rights as the basis of its government and system of laws is The United States of America. Originally, the colonies were a haven for people who wanted to escape religious persecution and find a home where their religious freedoms would be accepted and encouraged. With The Declaration of Independence written in 1776, the founding fathers came up with the argument that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The earliest leaders of America society used the premise of natural rights to defend their break from Britain. The result was to create the possibility of a nation based on certain undeniable right for all.  To this day, the United States takes pride in being a country that respects each citizen’s “unalienable” human rights.

In today’s society, the belief in natural human rights has taken a new face and has become a near universally accepted idea.  The belief in human rights is now not only embraced by the people in varies societies who are attempting to gain equality, but this idea has become the norm for how modern and developed societies should function. It is almost taboo for one not to believe in these rights.

I believe that the idea of natural rights that all humans are entitled to was a means for the powerless to justifying their desire for more representation and equality.  Because the idea is attractive to those who want to gain equality, the concept of unalienable human rights has become a near universally cherished and accepted view.  Most countries today function with the ideals of fundamental rights for all humans.

Forgiveness Vs. Justice

This past week, we watched Cry Freedom, a film that shed light on the work of black activists during the Apartheid.  What intrigued me about this movie was not only the actions that these leaders took to help the black population gain equality, but also their non-violent approach to reaching an egalitarian society.  Throughout the course of the movie, I attempted to put myself in the position of the leaders who tried to represent and advocate for the black population.  I tried to imagine both their bravery and their anger as activists and friends were arrested, tortured, and killed. 

The film ended without an explanation of how the Apartheid dissolved or how power shifted to the black majority.  So, I decided to look for more information on how the new leaders of the country chose to punish the white population after the Apartheid.  What I found completely contradicted how I would have dealt with the situation.  Rather than trying, convicting, and punishing the politicians and the police, the new leaders in South Africa established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Commission was a court-like body that was created to uncover the truth about human rights violations that had occurred during the Apartheid.  Rather than prosecuting individuals for past crimes, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission focused on gathering evidence and uncovering information from both victims and perpetrators.  The entire objective of the Commission was to uncover the truth.

After learning about this, I could not understand how people who were treated so poorly under the Apartheid regime could have continued with their non-violent approach to gaining equality. Why did the black majority in South Africa not rise up and take revenge on the white population? Why didn’t they put every policeman that enforced the racist laws on trial?

I believe that Nelson Mandela and his government’s ability to forgive in South Africa reflected a characteristic of a great leader and thinker.  I believe that the leaders of the black population in South Africa realized that punishing all of the white individuals who may have committed atrocities against the blacks would not be beneficial to the country and the South African population.  These leaders realized that a bloody revenge against their previously harsh oppressors would not lead the country in the direction of peace and equality that they had dreamed of. Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, explained that “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.” His vision of what South Africa should be was a peaceful and equal society. I believe that the leaders of the country after the Apartheid such as Nelson Mandela understood the distinction between what was just and what was needed for their country. The intelligent decision was not to pursue justice, but rather to forgive and move on. These leaders helped reshape the country of South Africa.

I would argue that this is not always the right response to dealing with the aftermath of crimes and injustices.  I believe that sometimes, pursuing justice is a better course of action. Sometimes serving justice to wrongdoers is what countries, people, and the world needs.  Justice (and revenge) can be used not only to equal the playing field, but also to prove that some actions cannot go unpunished. For example, if a murderer were to be caught and then forgiven and let go, there would be no clear punishment to stop future murderers from killing.  There would be no punishment to be afraid of.  The decision to bring a murderer to trial and to pursue justice for his/her actions is the right decision because it keeps society in order.

I also think that pursuing justice is important because often times justice brings a sense of comfort, closure, and relief that can help a victimized nation or a population recover and grow.  For example, I believe that the decision to prosecute the leaders of the Nazi government and deliver justice to those who had committed crimes against humanity in the Nuremburg Trials was in the best interest of the victims of World War II.  After years of unfathomable suffering, forgiving the Nazis would not have helped anyone or any society.  The Nuremburg Trials brought a sense of revenge and closure to those who had lost everything in the war.

But as the post-Apartheid period showed, sometimes the most beneficial decision for a country is not to pursue justice and fairness, but rather to forgive and move on.  Black leaders in South Africa such as Nelson Mandela decided not to take revenge on their white oppressors, but rather to uncover, acknowledge, and forgive their crimes for the good of their country.  The decision of whether to forgive or to pursue justice is not always clear-cut.  I believe that the validity of these decisions is circumstantial.  It depends on what is best for the future of a nation, a population, or the world. 

Internalizing Second Class Citizenship

Throughout history, leaders have used different methods for holding onto their power and keeping others from challenging their rules.  For instance, leaders have used religious justification to maintain power.  Monarchs called upon the Divine Right of Kings to legitimize their absolute power. The Divine Right of Kings stated that the one deserved his or her power because he was chosen by god to lead.

The Caste System in India was a system of social hierarchy that separated the haves and have-nots.  The people in lower castes were promised rewards in the after life as long as they respected their positions in society.

The Apartheid government did not use religion as a means to keep the minority in power, but was still able to effectively subjugate the majority black population.  How was this possible? 

The movie that our class watched, Cry Freedom, suggested that suppression was possible because members of the black community ultimately internalized a sense of inferiority that was a byproduct of the government’s brutal treatment.  We watched scenes depicting deadly crackdowns on peaceful protests in the homelands.  We saw black leaders being arrested and tortured for speaking out against the government. This brutality served two purposes.  One was to physically subjugate, intimidate, and isolate the black population.  The second was to corrupt the psyche of the black population into accepting the notion that they were second-class citizens.  As a result, many members of the black community lost the motivation to rebel against the government because they started to believe that they did not deserve to be treated equally.

The racism and prejudice that the government of South Africa demonstrated against the blacks amounted to a strategic political plan.  The Apartheid leaders in South Africa wanted to keep their power and positions by subjugating the black population.  This included leading some to believe that they were indeed less deserving of equality.  This was a particularly effective strategy for the government to maintain its power.[1]

---

[1] Here is a clip that shows how easy it is for people to lose their identity when they are repeatedly told that they are something which they are not, The Bear That Wasn’t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0a5JTSGvU).  In this video, a bear is told repeatedly that he is just a silly man wearing a fur coat and needs a shave, until he finds himself believing that he actually is man.  The bear internalizes the idea that he is not a bear but a human. The moral of the clip is to show how difficult it is to maintain an identity when one is repeatedly told that he or she is something else.