Justice and Hammurabi's Code

 

Surely you must be aware that the idea of religion being linked to morality is comparitively recent? Almost all ancient codes seem to be very similar in their makeup, and thus appear to be based on teleological moral maxims more than anything else - the idea of "moral laws" that one must practice to be a "good" person was meaningless then - although obviously certain religious practices demanded certain conducts, these weren't neccesarily practiced by the citizens in everyday life, and remember, as religion then went beyond Polytheism to actually believing in territorial and national gods, that would mean that morality would confict all the time when in actuality, it didn't - remember that Romans in particular often practiced several different religions and cults (although obviously the devout followers of the "eastern mystic" cults from Egypt, Syria and Asia minor did experience religion on a personal and moral level), and weren't connected morally to any of them - were this the case, the behaviours of the gods would become templates for moral actions, even in fundamentally animistic societes. Regard the example of Ptolemy II Philidelphius - who married his sister causing utter outrage in Egypt and amongst the Hellenistic world - if you are correct, then the behaviours of the gods would be moral templates and this would have been perfectly socially acceptable - however it wasn't, despite the fact that Cronos and Rhea were brother and sister, as were Uranus and Gaia, and as were Jupiter and Juno. It would appear that, from reading the ancient epics, we can clearly see that the gods are attributed with fundamentally human instincts superimposed from humans onto them rather than the other way around - religion is an invention of man, and thus man personified various aspects of the world to form animistic superstitions which were the basis for ancient religion. This would mean that, as we are using the earliest religions of civilisation as a template, that you almost believe moral laws to be a priori and to come from something else other than man? Remember man invented civilisation because of the needs to be in communities - moral laws fundamentally come from this need, and not from the explanation as to how the frightening and strange world of nature works, which was the basis of ancient religion. There is no connection between the two - Hammurabi's code is really a guidebook as to how to maintain a society rather than stating godly laws which are a later creation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. The synthesis of morals and religion comes much, much later.

 

Moreover, you can't attempt to seriously compare the complex and infinate principle of one supreme deity who is limitless - the alpha and omega - to the animistic, human-like gods that the ancient religions portray - moreover, the early Jewish religion was in all probability polytheistic, and in that respect is no different from what I am discussing above. The act of using Shamash to instruct him the laws is probably him appealing for the highest power that he knows - the sun god - to grant him the authority to make such laws, not the laws in themselves. Further, this section -

 

then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, 6--->and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

 

...Indicates my point - they are giving Hammurabi authority to enforce his laws and to construct a lasting society, they are not giving him the template to do such. Moreover, the statement "so that the strong should not harm the weak" is not neccesarily an example of a divine law, it could just be appealing to what makes society and civilisation different from savages - the co operation of humans on a grand scale to live together in communities. Because this is one of the most deep-set laws in the very essence of civilisation, it would appear to be a divine one, but we can see from the above extract and by looking at "divine" laws in this reading that morality would appear to be a prosteriori - and is based on the emprical evidence that humans have learn is needed to secure a working society. I don't want to troll here though (although I probably already have ) and have started discussing epistemology and ethics more than the topic - my apologies

I'm not sure what you mean here. I specifically said English civil law, and what I said is true of English civil law. It may or may not be true elsewhere.

 

For instance, in English contract law oral engagements are just as binding as written ones, because sticking to one's word, when both parties have given it, is seen as a moral imperative. Moreover, in adjudicating on contract issues, the court, other things being equal, is bound to favour the party that did not write the contract, something else that goies to the heart of the fairness concept.

 

I'm not saying English law is unique in this respect. For instance in European (EU) law, it is necessary that both parties are able to read the contract in a language they are familiar with, which again incorporates the moral imperative of fairness.

 

I would have said, incidentally, that systems of contract law which require contracts to be written and signed are less morality-based than the English (Anglo-Saxon in general) system.