Analysis Of The Code Of Hammurabi

What if there was a world where the law did not exist, no laws and no sort of governance such as a king or president? The code of Hammurabi is the first set of laws that are known to men, which were written in the early 1700’s B.C.E. and they’re function was to thwart any crimes to be committed and usually the laws were so extreme that a juvenile could get his hand truncated off if he talked back to his father. In sharp contrast to this concept Plato argued that,” good people do not need laws, to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” (Plato) Laws are further considerations of a more universal scope than morally within a political community which define us as a human being, as a culture, and as a whole. In the movie, Hannah Arendt, a philosopher went against the thoughts of society and stated her beliefs in the press exposing the truth about how Adolph Eichmann could not be charged with crimes against humanity since he was only following orders. Hannah was not offended of the riot that against her paper because as a philosopher, she would not write to please society rather because as a German Jew, she discerned that any German who was not a Nazi was pressed to do what they were told or they would be …show more content…
In the movie Hannah Arendt, both the Jewish and the Americans came to the consensus that she was wrong and that the crime that was enacted on Mr. Eichmann was rational although he was being incarcerated for a crime that did not exist. Then again, if we see their prejudice petitions it is lucid that the laws which both America and the Jews country have established are more humane than those which Adolf established, and that’s why their criticism was so imperative to the plot development. Although many people have different dogmas, we all have come as a whole to agree on many laws and that is what delineates who we are, even if we aren’t accurate on the