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
I think Hammurabi’s Code was just because, one of his laws was. If a free man was to know out the other man’s eye was to be knocked out as well. Therefore, it’s protecting the victim’s eye. That was law 196. In my opinion, I don’t think this law was bad, it’s protecting the free man but if a slave’s eye was to be knocked out. The other person would have to pay have of the slave’s owner ship to his master.
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.
The Code Of Hammurabi was a system of laws created by King Hammurabi of Babylon. It is written on a stele pillar in cuneiform. There are a total of 282 laws. The King claims that the laws are to protect the weaker people. Was The Code Of Hammurabi just? The Code Of Hammurabi is not just because of it’s property laws, personal injury laws, and family laws.
Hammurabi’s Code provides evidence for early documents that signify law and order. For instance, Hammurabi’s says in his code if a man wrongs another with his false accusations, he shall be subjected to death (1, 3). His laws illustrate a judicial system in which someone has to pay someone that they wronged in either the same way that they wronged him or through money depending on the person’s social status. It is also said in his code of law that there were penalties for those who disobeyed his laws. For example, Hammurabi says, “If that man do not pay attention to my words…may the great god, the father of the gods, ...
The Hammurabi Code of Law allowed swift, cut and dry justice. It was created to help keep everyone in line as well as give a quick judgment in cases of dispute or wrongful doing. Hammurabi took every common issue, wrote it down to specific details and listed the consequences for each action. It was a simple system that achieved positive and negative results. Either everyone conformed to this law or they would be executed.
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern.
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
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.
The “Code of Hammurabi” is considered to be one of the most valuable finds of human existence. In fact its very existence created the basis for the justice system we have come to rely on today. The creation of “the Code” was a tremendous achievement for not only Babylonian society but for the entire Mesopotamian region as King Hammurabi was ruler over all of that area. Its conception can be considered to be the first culmination of the laws of different regions into a single, logical text. Hammurabi wanted to be an efficient ruler and realized that this could be achieved through the use of a common set of laws which applied to all territories and all citizens who fell under his rule. This paper will discuss the Hammurabi Code and the implications it had after its inception.
Private Property and the Rule of the Middle Class in Aristotle’s Politics. In his discussions of constitutions and cities in politics, Aristotle makes it very clear that his top priority is to provide people with the opportunity to pursue and achieve the good life. An integral part of this is the stability of the constitution. Although Aristotle explicitly states that a kingship is the best system of rule for any given generation, its lack of stability from one generation to the next disqualifies it from being the best in reality.
the nature of a community, and Aristotle’s criticism of this unity gives insight into Aristotle’s way of thinking about his views on the nature of the
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
An ideal society is in practice a rather difficult aim and even an impossible aim to achieve. Politics implies measures which could and should, in the views of their devisor, be implemented in the hope to create a better society, than that which is already present. The very fact that Plato and Aristotle saw imperfections in the societies in which they lived, prompted them to write their political philosophies. These philosophies provided the first written recognition of politics. In his writings his "The Politics", Aristotle states that "Man is by nature a political animal"(The Politics, 1) in another words, it lies deep within the instinct of man.
This essay will aim to discuss what Aristotle proposes by the statement “man is by nature a political animal”. When looking at this question, the first thing to establish is the meaning of the word ‘political’. We must consider the fact that in the time of Aristotle the word ‘political’ was taken to mean something quite different, it was used to encompass a much wider description. In terms of the classical definition, the word political can be directly related back to the Greek word ‘polis’. The word polis can be translated into the ‘city-state’. To be political, was to involve oneself in the polis, which was the city-state. The polis is where the majority of, if not all, social activity took place and for that reason “ all social life in classical Greece was ‘political’ as it took place within the polis” (Mulgan, 1990). Aristotle maintains the idea that in order for a man to be political, he must take part in all aspects of society, not just certain political affairs.