Comparison of Universal Declaration and Hammurabi's Code: Examining the Evolution of Justice Systems

When comparing both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Hammurabi’s Code of Law, one of the first lines of the Preamble in the Declaration of Human Rights sums up the notion that there are very few comparisons to be made in terms of these two documents. It states: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...” Essentially, this breaks down to explaining that never in history has the rights of humans been explicitly laid out, executed, and respected, and if they have, they’ve only done so in a handful of nations. Therefore, it is necessary to establish this document so that all nations are subject to equal human rights and that the fundamental freedoms and universal rights to which humans are granted are taken to heart for the first explicit time. Right away, without even reading the word-for-word document of Hammurabi’s code, I can recognize the substantial difference that exists between the two, as the Code of Law states situations where the law/an overpowering organization must be implied to resolve an issue and restore justice/peace/structure back into society--no where does it mention the concept of respecting, satisfying, and acting in behalf of people’s human rights. Although, in language, the two documents do have some comparisons. The Code of Law refers to people as “Man” or “Woman”, whereas the Declaration consistently refers to “Everyone”; the openness and un-classifications of the term everyone really advocates for the universality of the entitled document, giving a much more communal and appreciable document of establishment of order than the Code does. In terms of content, both document allude to marriage issues, work and occupational issues, property issues and assumption, concept of slavery and ownership, etc. Of course, though, the Code alludes to the darker, blatant, and cruel concepts and methods of resolving them whereas the Declaration merely states out the right which everyone has regarding that issue/characteristic of society. The one thing which the Code lacks and the Declaration exceeds in is the notion of equality and freedoms; the lone word “freedom” or “right” or “people” does not appear once in the code, but appears countless times in the Declaration. I think that this shows incredible progression of history in the sense of lawful intents and contents, as law documents began laying out x-y-z here is what to do and what not to do and what will happen if you do that, and thousand(s) of years later, law documents reside to the choice which everyone has to make, but regardless, everyone has rights which can protect/hurt them if used or violated. The evolution of justice and laws/human rights is certainly one not to be underestimated, as the drastic differences and slim similarities which arose when examining these to documents separated by thousands of years time show us so much not only about the changes which occurred in the law, but the changes that occur(ed) regarding ourselves as humans, part of a larger and greater society according to an ever-evolving system of law. That exact evolution and concept of change will allow us to see what our core values are, as when observing these documents and their similarities/differences, the things that are missing or we feel are essential but not included/alluded to enough tell us enough about our individual lawful values to develop our own code of law to abide by. Maybe that’s what’s next in history--individualized laws and right systems--but who knows?

The Progression of Human Rights: French Revolution Until Tonight

Throughout the entire unit, I have been waiting for the concept of human rights to make its way through the surface. I had begun to question why this section’s theme was entitled Law AND Human Rights, when we had just been discussing law, for the most part, and neglecting the role of human rights in the progression of legal and human history. Why was human rights even included in this unit? I hadn’t really thought about it until I had just read the section on The French Revolution in the textbook, but I had noticed it and thought about it before. I had been trying to make somewhat whimsical and outlandish connections between legal and lawful events/ideas we have been coming up with previously in class and human rights/its relevance in history--but realistically, at the time in history/chronologically, human rights and the concept of them had not even risen yet! I never thought about the complexity and relevance of the concept of human rights itself, let alone when they come into play in history! It is fair to say that my perspective from how we live today in the United States of America, and how I’ve grown up with the rightful practices of this unique nation greatly effected the way that I thought about human rights as a whole. I feel that I merely assumed that human rights were an institution in society just like anything else was, like the law; i.e. if the law existed, so did human rights. Well, now I know that was entirely off. The idea of human rights germinated in 1789 (officially and most effectually)--that’s incredibly modern; 300 years ago! It was in the French Revolution in which the desperate need of restructuring the social, political, and religious organization was called for by the people as the abusive, irrational, and non-enlightened government instilled structures in their society which greatly opposed with the ideas of the Enlightenment and therefore the ideas/ideals of the people which the society made up of; sounded like a great time for a revolution (especially because of the instability and outside pressure coming in on the governing structures in France at the time). So, the Declaration of the Rights of Man was the revolutionary document which introduced and instituted the concept of human rights into society as the people of France saw it was necessary so lay out their undeniable and acclaimed rights to which must be respected and recognized. Such a basic and (seemingly) unquestionable notion, this changed the face of the French Revolution and for history as a whole (legality, mostly), revolutionizing almost everything about human history. Not only did it turn the Revolution all over, redefining what it meant to be a part of the French society, but it redefined what it meant to be human. And from there on, the concept and details of human rights kept on evolving as new events and other revolutions presented themselves. Human rights has developed so much from when they were initiated in 1789 as they needed to be inscribed on a piece of paper, as today, I could barely even recognize that human rights existed before 300 years ago, and the fact that there was a time where humans or groups of people did not even have or understand the concept of a right. That transformation has, for the first time, really shown me what it meant when earlier in the chapter, the concept of evolution of laws and rights and the progress throughout history was discussed. It really went full circle for me when reading the French Revolution passage because now, I am finally able to confidently and accurately make connections between laws, human rights, and history, not to mention answer the question of why human rights was included in this theme.

Alexander Hamilton and his Thoughts on the Bill of Rights

Going into reading this document, I had thought that I was strongly going to disagree with Hamilton as the Bill of Rights passed for a reason, that reason being that it a) further enforced the Constitution to new levels and heights, b) amplified the Constitution’s and American government’s lawful intentions and c) introduced new concepts that should have been originally included in the Constitution but were missed. Although, after thoroughly reading this document, I find myself agreeing with Hamilton. From his perspective, it is safe to say that he has a little bit of bias in the sense that he is in a position of power and wants to use and maintain that position but doing so constitutionally, rationally, fairly, and for the benefit of the people which he is governing/has the responsibility for, politcally. But, it can be seen throughout history as a pattern that leaders and people in seats of power, however just and constitutional they may be, seem, or claim to be, have the human quality and desire to use that power to his advantage. I am not saying that Alexander Hamilton was unconstitutional and he governed unfairly--just that he did not want to forfeit his power and governmental position and used whatever means necessary in order to do so; in this case, according to the Constitution, that mean was through a process of voting, so his method was very well thought out, as he wrote to the public, the people who would be voting on him and his ideas, to extend his thoughts which would a) keep him in his position and b) represent his ideas. I agree with his claim that the Bill of Rights is in fact repetitive of the Constitution: “Does a bill of rights specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the new Constitution... Therefore, referring to what is meant by a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the proposed Constitution. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this point.” Basically, that is saying that the Constitution lays out the foundation of the ideas for the government to govern by and can be applied to almost any situation--as it may not lay out the specific orders by which people should act by, it consistently suggests how to go about solving those issues and why to do it in such a manner. In other words, that the Bill of Rights is repeating and suggesting falseness and the lacking of the Constitution--being something that he wrote himself, that would be logical that he would revoke anything else which would cause such degradation (not that drastically, but just a little) to such a powerful and encompassing document. But it makes sense, right? If the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution, that means that there is more lawful text and evidence to turn to and manipulate/make it do something that could hurt (or help) the government that was not intentional in writing such a document(s). More advantage would be given to the people to justify and overthrow/turn against the government and the Constitution, and had the potential to throw Hamilton and the rest of the foundational American government--which was doing very well for/at the time!--out of the power and governing position, which was not a situation they wanted to be put in. So, to me, that is why I agree with Hamilton as viewing it from his perspective (as I see it) proves valid arguments and reason to remain the Constitution as it was, alone, and allow the government to continue developing and empowering itself along with the uprising authoritative nation under the Constitution. 

A Common Thread in More Than Just History Class

The event and topic which we have covered in history class this year that has reoccured throughout my other classes at Parker has to be that of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to the environment and environment-related history. Especially in science this year, we have focused on the sustainability of the planet and actually have referenced and referred to the Hierarchy of Needs as we were discussing how to sustain life and survive on an island (considering consuming renewable versus non-renewable sources, the rate of consumption of resources, etc.). As we were discussing the scenario of the small Islanders, we discussed how without their basic needs, as referred to earlier in the year during the environment unit and early civilizations including that of the Mohenjo Daro, Mesopotamia, etc., natural resources were essential in the survival of the people--all based off of and determined by the hierarchy of needs. I stated: on the island, as the population grew to a new high that the island had never seen before, the island did not have a big enough quantity of resources and materials to accommodate and sustain so many people. As the population increased, space as well as resources which the environment provided society with decreased as the demand for them to be supplied rose to an extreme hight. The island did not naturally have enough to supply each individual with the things they needed to sustain themselves, and without resources from their environment, the society and population decreased until it eventually disappeared completely. The smaller society before this expansive one preserved and maintained the environment so well in order to sustain themselves and provide their living style with the resources needed to survive. This is precisely applicable to what we studied earlier in the history year, as the civilizations earlier on did not accommodate for the essential and fundamental needs of the people involved, and therefore, led to a decline in population and ultimately making history. As civilizations got more modern, progressing over the next hundred years, we get to establishments like that of Hammurabi’s, where law is instituted in order to keep the fundamentals intact and not let society loose hold of them as it would cause much controversy and decline in population, resources, and ultimately the legal powers in place. Although, disregarding the legalities of the scenarios, throughout the year, sustainability has been a common thread in many of my other, non-historically focused classes, and inadvertently, the Hierarchy of Needs came up in the conversation/investigation as it proved to be such a fundamental property of the sustainability and progression of history, and now I see, scientific history and english history as well.

The Ever-Changing Intention of Laws: Law Codes to Moral Codes

When going through the “Asoka and Collective Morality” section of the textbook, there was a couple set of sentences which really got my mind up and running about a new idea that I haven’t thought about before. The introduction to the reading referred to the notion of the evolution of law itself, and how that evolution is determined not by the laws themselves, who they pertain to, where or how they are written, etc. They are determined in fact by their specific intent and what is included within the law which conveys that intention to the people which they will/would govern. I like the quote, “...had the safety and security chunk made up of Hammurabi, Mosaic Law, and Manu...priority was placed on laws to insure the safety and survival...”; to me, that says the certain laws such as those were crafted, instituted, and executed for one sole purpose, or intention: to keep those which they govern alive, sustainable, and stable. Interestingly, at the time which those laws were applied, which was incredibly early in history, correlated with the specific circumstances, resources, knowledge, and applications which existed at their time of existence. The laws pertained exactly with the time and people of the era! So, that laws intention would be to continue or extend, in this case, the people of that era by addressing the issues which seemed/were detrimental to that very thing: the sustainability and existence of the governed people. That is why the early laws, as there was not sustainable measures instituted in society yet as we would see in Asoka’s time, was to sustain the people; laws about flooding and destroying living areas and food sources, stealing essential items, etc. made sense because that was dealing with the issues of the time; the intent of those laws satisfied the present need/demands. Although, as this lawful revolution continued, times and institutions change, and survival became more of a given, the intent of the law, seemingly, changed as well along with the newly established needs of the governed people, mostly as seen by the government (Asoka..). Since law was no longer needed to for the function of survival, the governing member, Emperor Asoka, instated laws which went beyond a “do this not that” policy; it defined a nature of good and a nature of bad, and by distinguishing the two through the laws and punishments, presented her governed people with an option--something new when it came to laws back then in that moment(s) of history. The option was to abide by good-natured policies or by bad-natured policies, and thus, came the issue of morality. Asoka’s laws were the first solid example in history when morality and law coincide with each other, as the laws were instituted to ensure morality and to protect the good natured people (hopefully, everyone) from the evil natured people. Collective morality was the value system which took into account both lawful morality (the extent to which one follows and honors the law) and individual morality (how they a) interpret the law and b) generally act and develop their individual moral code to which they live according to). This means that through the law, every governed person would have their own, societal, lawful, and respected personal values and codes. That would go onto to define their character, life, societal impacts, etc. In this way, the title of collective morality makes a lot of sense as it creates a moral code based off of a collective input of all components of society and makes a collective impact on everything that one does, thinks, acts, etc. Emperor Asoka further pushed on the evolution of the law very effectually as he combined law and moral, two things that would go on to define cultures and societies and individuals throughout history. 

One last thing; when combining such moral codes and law codes, it is up to the individual to interpret and execute their actions based off of those to things. Such openness to interpretation and application lead to much controversy, worry, contradiction, etc. between the governing and the governed. Someone’s moral code could, perhaps, interfere with the law code being executed, and the way to which that situation was dealt with was certainly not included in the modernized law, so people and the government had to turn to the other aspect which influenced their decision making: morality. Collective morality, in this sense, could be seen as the sum of all values of morals from the people in any given group--as when coexisting, morals ought to be exchanged and diffused. Regardless, this is one of the first events in the history of law which leaves it quite open ended and interpretative, making it even more significant that Asoka implied the notion of morals along with the law, as without the collective moral codes, people would have no where to turn when the law did not satisfy something; and in upcoming historical events, that would much be the case. 

Socrates' Temptations of Justice and Injustice

What does Crito offer Socrates?

In this document, Crito is making Socrates aware that a ship from Delos is expected to arrive within the day and that the day following its arrival, authorities have made it clear the Socrates will be killed, and consequentially die. As a beloved friend and admirer of Socrates, Crito goes on to persuade Socrates to listen and accept his ideas of escaping Socrates from his acclaimed, upcoming death. Crito explains that the opinion of many and the greater population matters as they could potentially view a himself as someone who could have saved Socrates but was not willing to, completely, as they do not entirely know him as a person. He states that the greatest evil to anyone is the one who looses/has lost his good opinion. Socrates, being the wise and deep man which he is, rebuttals to say that whatever change or action which the greater people make is that of a result of utter chance; no man including himself can change another’s opinions. Now, the two dive into a dispute regarding the reasons for which Socrates is acting and responding the way he is. Is he acting in regards to Crito? In regards to other friends? In regards to the authorities and informers? Socrates reveals that he fears that if he is not able to escape, he may get in trouble with the authorities and loose his property and further evil would be done unto them; he fears that escape is not worth that risk. Then, Crito reveals his master plan, defying all law and rightness to which Socrates feared! His plans are as follows, offering to Socrates that: people will bring him out of prison, and the authorities will be bribed with little amounts of money, satisfying their cheapness. Many people and communities are willing to spend money at great costs for the protection of Socrates as he was such an amazing asset in their eyes. Here’s where law and lawfulness versus unlawfulness (and the concept of justice) comes into play. Both Crito and Socrates understand and are fully aware that these actions are not justified, certainly not by the law. By committing such actions, Socrates would betray his entire life, studies, and individual codes as he strived to abide by the law, moralities, and justice; this is everything opposite of that! Whether or not trial would come in regard to Crito’s plan and Socrates’ eventual actions, it was justified that this was absurd, unlawful, and courageous--but not emerges an incredible debate, held mostly internally of Socrates (and I’m sure or Crito as he thought of it before he approached Socrates so early. What is more important: unlawfulness, injustice, and absurdity when absolutely needed in a life or death situation (which was what Socrates was in), or (just like he had spent his entire life) abiding by morals, the law, justice, and individual drive to do what is right? That’s a real tough one. At this time, with this internal debate, Crito concludes his offer to Socrates, pleading him to be persuaded and to go along with Crito’s plan (he’s a really devoted friend!). Socrates being Socrates, began to go through all the possibilities which could arise if accepting Crito’s invaluable plan. He claims they must be guided by reason; it’s what he honors and knows, and be all means this plan has very little reasonability and justification! Socrates then states that only under certain circumstances must Crito’s plan and reasoning apply and work, rightly so. They go on to explain how law and punishment is instituted to condemn those who break it and commit actions without reason, justification, and rightness. He says that the just man is much more honorable and honored/admired than the non-just as they “deteriorate” the body of government/law which they are immersed in. With this, he concludes that they must not take into account what others say about them, but focus on what the truth of the matter is. One more argument which Socrates hold is that of justice: should they cause suffering to others in the aid of his escape in the sense of righteousness or unrighteousness? The question is left unanswered, as the two continue their discussion to justify Socrates’ escape decision based entirely off of law, justice, morality, and their individual senses of right and wrong--their set of truths that will lead them to the arrival of their final answer to the lawful debate at hand. Finally, in a nutshell, Socrates decides to go with “the will of God”, as if he goes forth he id equally returning evil and injustice for itself, and wronging those who have nothing to be wronged! He must think of justice (and law) before the opinions of others, the future of the children, and the being of Crito/other friends, as that will lead him to a happier, holier, juster life which he longs for.

Aspects of Society Influencing Laws and Legislation

I want to talk about the discussion of Hammurabi’s Code of Laws which was held on Thursday during class. Some really interesting stuff came up throughout that conversation, but one concept really stuck with me, and that was the notion of aspects of society influencing and effecting laws. When I mention “aspects” or “elements” of society, I am referring to the different components which combine to establish the life of any given individual during the time of the law’s application. Side-note, real quick, is that also when we were talking, I noticed that people began to make assumptions about the unjustness, unfairness, and wrongness of the law code because, for example, different distinctions in social classes were not right and were removed from (most) of society later on in history, especially at the time which we are living in now! They were bridging and connecting the implications of our society to the society of Hammurabi and his laws, which are in fact two incredibly distinct and separate societies with different societal implications, laws, and overall aspects. People were not looking at the situation through the eyes of someone living at the time in that certain society, therefore distorting the discussion (me included..). I now understand and realize that in order to hold a productive and accurate conversation about Hammurabi’s Code of Law, we would merely have to anticipate and accept the implications and institutions of the society back then in the historical moment(s), and that the laws were in no way wrong, but in fact addressing, respecting, and monitoring the way society was run. It was not unjust, or wrong, so to speak--it was just how it was. Today, we don’t question our society and its governing laws; we just understand that that is the way it is done and we coexist with it. That is what I am going to attempt to do now, but from an ordinary historical point of view. 

Back to aspects of society inverting the laws which govern such. The first thing I want to point out is the issue of social class effecting the content and application of the law on people. Historically, law has been written, executed, and enforced by government, usually the higher end of the governing body, i.e. the royalty. Obviously, because all history is, there will be bias contained in the law, specifically towards that of their upper class. Hammurabi’s Code of Law, however, had extensive amounts of contributors who assisted in creating and writing the laws themselves, as they were not simply from Hammurabi’s direct mouth. In this sense, there would still be bias and what we referred to as “wrong” or “unlawful/unfair” within the written law, but not entirely. And the extreme variation and extensiveness of the law exemplifies that ideally. So, in that spirit, social class and individual origins of economic, social, and over societal standings do have a major role in the execution and development of law, and should have a well-deserved spot to do so. Although, it gets iffy around the time when that power is overused to commit unlawfulness based entirely off of social class, as seen in historical events comparable to the French Revolution (but that’s more religious class considering the implications of that certain society at that certain time in history). That transitions very well into the next aspect I want to discuss, that of religion. Previously, we read a short passage regarding one of the earlier laws in history, the Mosaic Code. These laws addressed things that needed to be balanced, i.e. justified by morality as they were created around the time of Moses leading the Israelites through the desert, three thousand five hundred and three years ago, to be exact. It dealt specifically with issues of justice and virtue/goodness as the people yearned for an identification of the right versus the wrong (action and thought alike) and something to enforce such behaviors, governing among the (mobile) society. Legislation was the way to do it, and thus, the Mosaic Code came about. The only issue with this set of laws is that more than any of the ones we have studied (Laws of Manu, Hammurabi’s Code of Law, etc.), these had the most influence and fluctuation as religion inspired and drove them. Again, these laws were not wrong or unjust (in the standpoint of an opposing religion, per say--because at the time everyone subject to such law shared the common religion of Judaism). It was just that, at the time and that certain location(s), religion was the dominating notion which controlled everyone’s life; Moses, the follower or government in this case, instigated the Mosaic Law to help control, justify, and solve issues which were among his people. In his eyes, religion was the thing to turn to, and thus this law code was based entirely off of religion. 

Being just two examples, religion and social/economic class have influenced law and the way things are justified and “work” in society. So, I would argue that aspects and elements of society as described above do have a part in determining the laws which are created and applied among societies, all depending on the society which those specific laws are in at that certain time period; out of that is where/when it is fair that people claim such laws unlawful, wrong, and unfair.