From a theoretical standpoint, as the common expression regarding and summarizes Hammurabi's code goes; ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ is technically fair. More recently in history, mauling somebody's eye out would more likely get you jail time, but it is arguable that Hammurabi's system is a lot more effective. Today, if one were to maul the eye of one of his colleagues out, he would have to face jail time, but back then, you got your eye mauled out yourself. Most would agree on the fact that they would be a lot less tempted to maul out somebody’s eye if they themselves got their eye taken out. Also, this time wasn't exactly ‘the height of all things medical’ either. This process (which was actually a law (196. If a free person puts out the eye of another free person, that person's eye shall be put out) (The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon, about 2250 B.C)) it wouldn't exactly be the careful, painless process we recognize it as today. When one is making the argument that Hammurabi's code of law was fair, a common counter-argument would be that the rich got fewer consequences than the poor. This, of course, is a very valid argument, why should the rich get more privileges than the poor? Well, the answer is simple. The rich have all the power and influence. If the rich aren't happy, you’re going to have a hard time keeping society in check. By giving the rich what they want …show more content…
H. “An Analysis of the Hammurabi Code.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, vol. 36, no. 4, 1920, pp. 310–315. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/528333.
Extra:
Rendering, Jona. “Babylonian Empire.” Josephus - Livius, Livius.org, 2 Apr. 2018, www.livius.org/articles/place/babylonian-empire/.
Jarus, Owen. “Code of Hammurabi: Ancient Babylonian Laws.” Live Science,