Hammurabi: Hypocritical, Unfair Or Unjust?

1750 B.C., in the land of Mesopotamia, where a fallen society from a lack of reason and authority took place, a king named Hammurabi arose and set forth a code of laws to convey a righteous rule, keeping the people in order. However, the laws created for their society turned out to be unfair and unjust. The prologue of the Hammurabi Code states “Anu (king of Anunaki) and Bel (Lord of Heaven and Earth) called by name me Hammurabi, the exalted prince…to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land to destroy the wicked and evil doers so that the strong should not harm the weak so that I should rule over the black headed people like Shamash and enlighten the land to further the well-being of mankind.” It is said in the prologue that the laws
were made to protect the weak, yet they did not. How the laws dealt with slaves, which were the weak, versus the freeman that were the strong, civilly, reveals hypocrisy and injustice. How the laws worked with the rights of men versus women demonstrates unfairness and injustice.
Having no say against these laws is also an example of injustice. Who would want to live under a code of laws that are hypocritical, unfair, and unjust? First of all, if a person of a higher class hits a slave, he pays half of the slave’s value, which was probably low considering the fact that they saw slaves as just property. If a person hits the same person of his social class, it is an “eye for an eye.” This injustice shows no protection whatsoever for the weak because the strong can basically harm the weak and not have as much done to them in return. The ones of higher social classes would think twice about putting out the eye or breaking the bone of a man’s slave if the “eye for an eye” rule applied to all regardless of social class. Second of all, if a physician performs an operation, accidently killing a freeman or cutting his eye out, the hands of the doctor would be cut off, whereas with a slave, it is simply a replacement. This rule means that the doctors would have to be more careful when operating on the freeman. Providing protection, in this situation, for the weak, would mean to be just as careful during an operation as you would on a person who is
not a slave. Lastly, if a slave who has run away from his master is sheltered by a person, providing protection, the person would be put to death. It shows you how they viewed the slaves as property rather than real people and how unprotected the weak really were. Next, men could initiate divorce and women could not. Even if the women were unhappy, they did not have much say. The husband made decisions and did things that women could not do. Husbands could cheat on their wives. As long as they took care of their wives, they could have sexual relations with other women. It is also unfair for women that the husbands had all the money, could initiate divorce, and cheat. Sometimes women felt like property just as slaves did, like all their job was to do is make offspring. Again, did women have the right to speak up? When a woman was on the verge of death because she cheated on her husband, did she have a chance to speak against the punishment, or explain how the husband can do it and I can’t? No, she is immediately put to death, which is a strong example of injustice. In closing, in the midst of a king named Hammurabi trying to put a stop to the chaos with his code of laws, the unfairness and injustice still existed in the land of Mesopotamia. It was very hypocritical how Hammurabi let the people know that with his code of laws the weak would be protected and the land would be enlightened to the well-being of all humankind. I would not want to live under the Hammurabi code of laws. All people should have both the rights and equality under his authority.