realistic

Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection

which the code is carved, is an obelisk-like block of black diorite
measuring 7 ft. 4½ in. in height and 6 ft 9½ in. in circumference at
the base and is now in the Louvre Museum. The Code contained 285
"legal judgments of Hammurabi". These are judgements on all sorts of
subjects from sex, religion, inheritance, to rental agreements.

The next most complete, known code of ethics and morality has survived
as the book of Deuteronomy from the time of Moses. Even though
Deuteronomy was eventually assembled by the Israelites, exiled in
Babylon, the Hammurabi code was designed for urbanites while the code
of Moses was designed for a nomadic people in the desert. I think it's
interesting to note that the morality of Deuteronomy was a collection
of things "not to do", while the morality embodied in the philosophy
of Jesus was a collection of things "to do".

Hammurabi saw no difference between morality, ethics, and law, they
were all embodied in his ultimate wisdom. The document ends with a
blessing for those who will obey the laws and a long series of curses
against him who will give no heed to the laws, or interfere with the
word of the Code. While the code of Hammuurabi was founded on the
dictates of reason, the code of Moses was theocratic and founded on
the desire to please Yahweh. This introduction of theocracy added
additional motivation to obey the prescribed code. It also made it
impossible to alter the code as new information is acquired. Due to
the fact that in theocracy, morality is not reasoned, the rejection of
that code by liberalists is not always reasoned either.

Some sources claim there are differences between morality, ethics, and
law. Others do not. In this author's mind, the term morality is
attached to a theocracy and is made up of specific behaviors, ethics
are attached to the general reasoning of fairness in commerce and war,
and law is specific, secular delineation of fairness based on the
history of the law. All three of these terms are similar in that they
refer to a code of behavior, and, in some cases, all three relate to
theocracy.

Among the ancient writers of religious morality, there was often no
knowledge of the exact chain of events between a particular behavior
and it's disastrous results. They could only explain that everything
related to the gods or to God. Certain types of sexual behavior, for
instance, resulted in disease or an early death. They didn't know why
the two were connected, but they were able to make the association.
These codes were collected over thousands of years, first in oral
tradition before literacy, and then later, written down. The
limitations and simplicity of language among these early writers was
an indication of their level of understanding.

To help illustrate the conflict between the unforgiving nature of
codes of behavior and the apparent exceptions to every rule, we will
consider the "unmarked intersection". If the ancient people had had
traffic, I'm sure there would have been a moral code regarding the
unmarked intersection. The naive driver is not aware of the mortal
consequences of this seemingly normal event. The most conservative
behavioral code in regard to these intersections would be to avoid
them completely using only the main roads. This is the position of
conservative moral code. For a happy life, "do it not", and there are
no collisions. However, people will ignore the code, saying they must
drive through the intersections, often without looking, and they are
amazed to find no resulting problems.

This will lead them to question the code's wisdom. The observation of
occasional collisions may then cause them to alter the code to: "at
unmarked intersections yield to the vehicle on the right". The
assumption would be that one would not drive through the unmarked
intersections at full speed while only checking to see that it is
clear to the right, disregarding vehicles on a collision course coming
from the left. But this will happen. Continued occasional collisions
might cause them to be even more specific and alert the driver that
they should approach these intersections with the understanding that
they will need enough visibility to see another car approaching on a
collision course at 40 mph from either direction. This may require a
complete stop at the intersection. Now the code is much more complex
and may fail due to the inability of people to understand it. There
may then be interest in reinstating the original code. With all these
swings from liberal to conservative and back, the point remains that
the physics of colliding vehicles and the resulting mortality leaves
no room for debate.

As we develop a greater and greater understanding of the chain of
events between behavior and the resulting consequences we have the
ability to develop codes of behavior that are a perfect balance
between human needs and dangerous, or unfair, practices. Although
these codes will require a level of understanding in order to be
followed, once that level is addressed, the evidence of breaching
those codes will be far more convincing than even theocracy.

Natural409
RFHall
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence

albert

<snip>

How do you know what the design was?

Truly a superficial observation, and therefore not correct.


You not only claim to know the 'design' criteria, you claim
specifically that one was founded on 'reason' and one was not.


What 'new' information are you thinking of and how would the
tables of law have to be modified to accommodate it?


"Morality is not reasoned?" My, but you have access to
information that two millenia of historians don't.

They were irrational and unreasonable, huh? Your insight into
ancient history is indeed miraculous.


If you are going to comment on ancient Judaic law, especially on
the difference between the Tables of Law (The Ten Commandments)
and the Mosaic laws of diet and health you should not lump the
two together as if there were no differences.

I surmise that you are proud of your essay, but it has little
credibility due to your lack of research and your interjection of
opinion thinly disguised as fact.

--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

don

I have to agree with you, Albert. RFHall's thinking is extraordinarily
woolly and superficial.

Among all the garbage he wrote (it is plain he has never read critically the
Hammurabi Code, Deuteronomy or the NT) I was not able to work out what his
main point was.

One assertion that particularly erked me was:

"While the code of Hammuurabi was founded on the
dictates of reason, the code of Moses was theocratic and founded on
the desire to please Yahweh"

What a load of codswallop. He completely fails to place the Hammurabi Code
in its proper Sitz im Leben as a spiritually founded document. What
authority does he think Hammurabi used to justify his rule? And how on earth
does he conclude that reason was involved? It is a set of commands.

regards
Don

albert

My understanding was that Hammurabi did little more than
standardize and make official the already long standing folk
justice that had evolved over generations of the common people.


--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

don

You may well be right.

However, you can see just how these ideas are imbedded in theocracy because
they open thus:

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and
earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling
son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him
great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it
great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations
are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; 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, and enlighten the land, to further the
well-being of mankind... When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the
protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . ,
and brought about the well-being of the oppressed."

Thereafter the code proceeds item by item...

And then it closes in the same religious vein

"The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose
staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast
I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I
have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. ..."

So really for RFHall to suggest that it is different from Deuteronomy by not
being theocratic and rooted in a desire to please God (Marduk in the case of
the Sumerians) is a bit rich. As I'm sure you would agree.

As I say, I don't think he had read it (though he may have now - the text is
readily available on the Internet).

regards
Don

william elliot

How does it go? I hope not lengthy.
Is it as succent as the 10 commands?

realistic

From the people to which these codes applied. I guess one could write
an entire book on this comparison. I thought the simple statement
would be sufficient for those who might like to investigate it further.


The difference is summarized in the difference between the golden rule
of Jesus and the golden rule of Judaism. Do you know the difference?


Hammurabi was assigned by the Gods to pass judgement, Moses maintained
that he received his judgements from God.


Scientific information, for instance.. the discovery of bacteria and
virus' and their role in moral behavior. Economic information and it's role in ethics.


Theocratic morality is not reasoned, it is delivered as the word of God, or gods.

I said theocratic law did not appeal to reason.

Thanks for your comments Albert. I thought I was painting with a broad
brush. I didn't realize the reader could be tangled up in the first
few paragraphs. To say theocracy doesn't relate to reason doesn't
mean it is unreasonable or irrational. I thought I brought that out
in the parable about the unmarked intersection.

Is this essay too offensive to the Jewish reader?

RFHall

realistic

Theocracy attributes the truthfulness of morality to God. Hammurabi
attributes his "righteousness" to himself as a minister of his gods.


Hammurabi, apparently believed that he was called by his gods to pass judgements.


here it is Hammurabi who is to "enlighten" the land.


Religious, he was.. but Hammurabi made the decisions.

Moses, on the other hand, spoke directly with god, argued with god,
and attributed all his wisdom from his communications with god.

RFHall

albert

Most of Babylon was small towns. The Mosaic law was still in
effect after large cities in Judah and Israel. You are confused
as to who the codes applied. In each case the laws applied to
all, both urban, sub-urban and nomadic people.

For those of us who have already investigated further than you,
your 'simple statement' is wrong and misleading.


Yes.
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/mt/mt_19.htm

I still claim that your observation is superficial. There was no
mention of either 'golden rule' in your statement that evoked my
comment. Not being a Jew, I do not study the Talmud; Therefore,
I am largely unaware of it's teachings and what weight is given
to its 'golden rule.' However, I am aware that the 'philosophy'
of Jesus, which you reference above, was considerably more
complex than his 'golden rule.'


So, your statement that "the code of Hammurabi was founded on the
dictates of reason, the code of Moses was theocratic and founded
on the desire to please Yahweh," is proved true because God gave
Hammurabi the right to 'pass judgment' and was unspecific as to
the details and God gave his specific commands directly to Moses
because Moses was too unreasonable to arrive at the proper laws
by himself?

In that your only argument for reason in Hammurabi's case, and
not in Moses' case, depends on the act of God, can one assume
that you believe in God? Most especially, the God of Hammurabi?
What have you to say about the reasonableness of Hammurabi's
code? e.g. What do you consider more reasonable about guilt or
innocence being determined by jumping into the river?


You here reference only the man-made Mosaic dietary and health
laws not the law handed down from God. A knowledge of the
difference, which Jesus taught, is necessary to comment unambiguously.


How does the discovery of bacteria or virii alter the laws handed down by God?


LOL. So you consider economics a science? What does economics
say about the Ten Commandments?


This argument only holds water if you believe in God and that he
did in fact deliver the Ten Commandments to Moses intact.


Yes, that is what you said, but never supported.

Yet, it does appeal to reason and was reasonable. What do you
know of Germ Theory and its relatively recent discovery? Were
doctors prior to Germ Theory unreasonable?

Yes, much too broad.

It's not the reader who is tangled up; It's the writer.


Your 'parable' was ill-chosen and inappropriate. Civil law and
moral law are not identical.


I wouldn't know. It is certainly offensive to educated
Christians. But, of course, you knew that when you posted it.
We all have a very visible history on Usenet, Mr. Hall.


--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

don

The Hammurabi Code is not a system of judgement but a list of Commands.

For a system of judgements to be used as a basis of law, you have to wait
until the Romans. It is only then that people look for the legal principles
within the law and apply it systematically. That was because they held a natural law vew.

Isn't it interesting how similar this is to Hammurabi who also spoke with
the gods?

regards
Don