Hammurabi Leadership

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once stated that, “You do not lead by hitting people over the head-that’s assault, not leadership.” This serves to highlights one of the key distinctions between moral and effective leadership: moral leaders do not use force, but choose to lead through peaceful means while staying effective. Raw effective leadership is simple, given that the only real requirement is that you lead, but to lead morally, you must not only be effective, but you must also lead by example with patience, compassion, and strength. Where an effective leader is simply someone who leads others adequately, a moral leader is someone who leads people successfully by focusing on leading their people by example and never wavering in the peaceful …show more content…
For example, one of the most infamous ancient ruler is Hammurabi of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi’s greatest contribution to his kingdom was one of the most well-known set of ancient laws: Hammurabi’s Code. While there were a number of laws that dealt mostly with property rights of builders, merchants, and general property owners, there were several laws that stipulated punishments that many people might now consider to be barbaric and immoral. The code is well known for helping to coin the phrase, “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” due to the laws stating that if a man takes another man’s eye or knocks out his teeth, he too must lose an eye or have the same number of teeth knocked out. Additionally, robbers were to be given the death penalty and unruly sons who struck their fathers were to have their hands sawn off. But as a result of these laws and the steep punishments for violating them, one can imagine that the Mesopotamian region saw fewer eyeless men, rarely felt the pain of a strike from a son, and seldom experienced the biting pain of having their teeth knocked out. So, there is very clear evidence for the effectiveness of Hammurabi’s code. However, the punishments are generally incredibly cruel and rarely fit the crime, so the case cannot be made that they are moral. Thus, Hammurabi reveals that for something to be …show more content…
Hammurabi, on the other hand lead his people through laws based in fear and punishment, instead of out of compassion and reward. He led, not by showing how things could be made great, but by showing how violently you would be dealt with if you acted up or went against societal norms. It was effective, but there was no hint of morality to his rule over the people of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi led through violence, where the Mirabals and Suu Kyi led with peace, showing the clear distinction between leaders who are merely effective and leaders who are moral in their intentions and in the way that they lead. Hammurabi shows that his leadership was assault as opposed to true leadership, where the Mirabals and Aung San Suu Kyi clearly lead through the words of Eisenhower and never beat people over the head, either with their message or their styles of