10 ms·

What were the earliest laws like?

• mcphage 1y ago
  One thing I’ve heard historians mention, that is like to know more about, is that these law stelae, while impressive, aren’t actually referenced in legal cases during their time. So they’re the laws as written, not actually the laws as practiced.
  • protocolture 1y ago
    I think I read that these might even just be proposals or a statement of ideals, especially in Hammurabi's case.
    • samrus 1y ago
      A bill being condiered by legislative bodies (priesthood) parhaps?
      • protocolture 1y ago
        Not impossible
  • ethan_smith 1y ago
    Mesopotamian court records from Nippur and Larsa show legal decisions often diverged from Hammurabi's code, with judges frequently applying local customs and precedent rather than citing the written laws.
    • samrus 1y ago
      Federal versus local authority? Crazy how mesopotamia was advanced enough to deal with these problems all that time ago
• ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I really like that story! I appreciate it being shared. I had no idea about this chap.
• w10-1 1y ago
  TLDR: earlier than Hammurabi's eye-for-an-eye justice was Urukagina, who presented himself as a savior for the people, including getting them out of debt and protecting them from corrupt officials. (But OP is most excellent and worth reading.) It reminded me of Solon's changes in Athens, to broker some fairness, wipe prior debts and outlaw debtor's prisons, require military service (paid for the lower classes), and of course opening decisions beyond to hereditary aristocrats (land owners) to those with wealth (traders). In both cases, leaders seemed to be responding to stasis borne of economic oppression. However, ideology is not evidence of justice; both Putin and Xi present themselves as champions of the people against the corrupt bureaucracy (and discipline their governments via discretionary application of high standards). But the brutality of eye-for-an-eye might obscure the point: Hammurabi seems to be distinct in not associating power with the person, but establishing settled expectations so people could sort out their differences directly (freeing the leader from the no-win situation of judging disputes). That makes it easier for the laws to continue largely the same, regardless of the style of government (much as we in the US and EU still apply English and Roman law). It's a shame our sampling of ancient governance is limited to stone and clay tablets from the middle east. There's evidence of other societies of a similar sophistication but without the hierarchical dependence on gods and beer.
• lwansbrough 1y ago
  I’m supposed to believe these were the first guys to make laws? Put 10 guys in a small room for a few hours and I guarantee some rules will develop. There are thousands of years we’re missing records for!
  • irrational 1y ago
    Earliest historical laws. By definition, anything before writing is pre-history.
  • Defletter 1y ago
    I guess that's an interesting distinction: what's the difference between a law and a rule. I think there are two main differences: 1. In your example, the group of buddies all created the rules and consented to them. This is not true for laws which instead invent concepts like the social contract to justify itself. 2. When you break the law, say murder, the ultimate victim is the state. The person you murdered is just evidence in the state's case against you. This is why there are Victims Right's movements. This is not really true with such buddie rules: breaking them may hurt your friends' feelings, but there wont really be an equivalent to it harming the social fabric. 3. Laws imply law enforcement, which implies use of force. Are you and your buddies willing to enforce your rules on each other with lethal force?
    • AlotOfReading 1y ago
      The "state" didn't exist for the laws in the article, being a much later concept and some of the oldest systems of law we have good records for are religious laws like those of the old testament. The victim in that case isn't even in society, but rather a diety outside it. In case that seems like a stretched usage of the word "law", there are instances in the prophetic books where God brings lawsuits against the israelites. A simple definition used by anthropologists is a system of codes enforced by external parties.
    • kybernetikos 1y ago
      I think probably the distinction we're making here is just one of scale and acceptance. I don't see your distinctions as fundamental: 1. If 9 of the ten friends consent and one doesn't they can still be forced to follow the rule the nine friends decided on. 2. Although it's a smaller scale, there absolutely is a 'social fabric' that can be harmed in a group of ten friends. 3. I don't think laws necessitate the use of lethal force, but yes, groups of people e.g. in sports or school do sometimes use violence to enforce group decisions on their members. In some early societies, there was a basic assumption that broadly speaking the head of a household should have the right to manage their affairs as they wished. Laws were there to mediate between households (rather than individuals) and the big benefit they give to justify the loss of freedom is the control and management of blood feuds, which otherwise can be devastatingly destructive.
• tbrownaw 1y ago
  Sound like these earliest written laws (that we know about, so far) were meant to answer problems people had with some previous laws.
  • samrus 1y ago
    Legislation is a dynamical and iterative process so that makes sense. We always make laws by looking at the previous set of laws, the society they resulted in, the society we wanna live in, and then adjusting the laws. Even the firsr laws would have been introduced to a society that was the result of anarchy, which is a type of law, like being bald is a hairstyle
• niemandhier 1y ago
  Walking through the Louvre or the British museum I always feel a mixture of awe, sadness and relief. Awe of the artefacts. Sadness that they have been taken from their native lands. Relieve that they are safe. I hope at some point in the future we can come up with a solution that will enable all humans to appreciate these parts of our shared cultural heritage, without ripping them from their current sanctuaries or forcing the formerly conquered to engage in a pilgrimage to the capitals of their conquerors.
  • badpun 1y ago
    Right now, every responsible country that is even vaguely threatened by their neighbor has a concrete plan in place on how and where to evacaute their most valueable cultural artfacts, in an event of an invasion. And likewise, every serious invader has special units that include historians, whose role is to locate and plunder those valuable artifacts. I'd say we're pretty far from your desired state.
• kindkang2024 1y ago
  > Schoolchildren all over the world learn that Hammurabi’s code — famous for its “eye for an eye” vision of retributive justice — was the world’s first. The more I think about ancient laws, the more I appreciate the wisdom of the ancients. The law that says “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” contains a depth of insight that many today overlook. In modern society, it’s often dismissed as outdated, cruel, or inhumane. But personally, I believe that rejecting this principle entirely is a serious—and dangerous—mistake. "Eye for an eye, life for a life" was never meant to destroy or harm, but to protect. This becomes clear when we examine it closely. If justice is reduced merely to financial compensation, then the wealthy can harm the poor and simply pay their way out. Is that truly justice? And what if someone takes a life—yet remains alive in prison, or even walks free years later? How is that fair to the victims? Just imagine yourself as the victim—your eye deliberately and seriously injured, or your life shattered by someone’s malice. Isn't the answer more obvious then? This principle has never brought chaos to humanity. It’s often misunderstood as promoting endless cycles of revenge, but that interpretation misses the point. In fact, the principle becomes clearer through the lens of individual responsibility. As the Bible puts it: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” In a just system built on individual accountability, those who seek justice are still free to forgive. If those in conflicts choose not to, and let endless hatred consume them, they both suffer. In this way, the principle actually has a natural tendency to limit conflict and promote resolution over time. In The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, this dynamic is explained scientifically: when bad actions are punished and good actions rewarded, cooperation thrives. (His findings, such as the “tit-for-tat” strategy starting with kindness fosters cooperation.) Human civilizations is possible with very truth. It may not always be written into law—but it lives through free will and moral instinct. Let those who dare to do evil face the consequences of their actions. Let their wrongdoing diminish their standing—their fitness, as some might say. Only those who intend to do evil fear the law “an eye for an eye, a life for a life.” For good people, it means the opposite: that kindness begets kindness to make all great again. Yet today, many focus only on blind forgiveness. In my view, this is misguided—especially when it leads to abolishing the death penalty. The dead cannot forgive. They are already gone. If we truly believe that all lives matter—worldwide—then this principle deserves far more respect and appreciation than it receives today.
• IAmBroom 1y ago
  My unwavering belief is that laws are not, and never have been, about "justice". The government is interested in its own survival, from the individual (reelection, lifetime monarchy, etc.) to the complete entity (both parties in the US almost invariably increase the government size). Law is like that joke that parents don't want fairness; they want silence. The law wants a cooperative public, and will do (first) the minimum necessary to achieve that ("I'm tough on crime!!!"), and (second) whatever is in its own interest (speed traps, licensing as revenue, etc.). Only with a cooperative public can the government afford to pursue survival and growth. If bread and circuses are enough, you'll get circuses and bread! If not, maybe public regulation and security theater is needed. I'm not saying all politics is heartlessly unconcerned with the common good, but that the public's perception of the common good is more important to the law.
  • greenhearth 1y ago
    Laws are many things and one of those things is a concern for justice. As far as self-perpetuation of the state, yes this is how a state operates, this is the nature of it. As for "the government," what is it? It's not a monolithic thing that you can just point your finger to. It depends on the nature and character of the citizens and the established customs of the nation, of which laws are a part. If we're talking about ancient Mesopotamia, then this is probably a tyrannical aspect. But there are many types of governments and constitutions. This dismissive attitude for "the government" is really not a practical, and even kind of a juvenile mentality.