Last updated: February 16, 2019
Topic: SocietyWork
Sample donated:

Western Legal Tradition Essay, Research Paper

Western Legal Tradition Paper # 1

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Oct. 7, 1996

When Machiavelli wrote of whether it was more of import to be feared

than loved, he had decidedly studied the instances brought up in this paper. He

talked of how political relations and power were all that a existent leader should be

concerned with, and, if he isn & # 8217 ; t how he will non be a strong leader. When

Machaivelli writes of being loved, he may hold had the love for the Gods in

head, as is the instance of the illustrations given in the assignment. The chief

difference between the jurisprudence and constructs of jurisprudence held by the antediluvian

Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and Hebrew leaders versus regulation by a set of

stealers, is merely that- a differentiation between love versus power.

All constructs of jurisprudence in ancient civilisations had one thing in

common: they were all supposed to be enforced by a more supreme being.

For the Egyptians that being was the Pharaoh ; for the Mesopotamians, the

Supreme beings and the swayers descended from them ; and for the Jews, their God. The

people and the swayers both believed that if you violate the regulations, so the

Supreme beings would penalize you. If you followed the Gods, so, conversely, they

would see to it that you were rewarded. In regulation by a set of stealers, you

may hold little sums of love for the leaders, but the existent ground that

supports you following them is fear.

In ancient Egypt, regulation was kept by a category of people known as

Pharaohs. These work forces were seen to hold been descended from God, so they

were considered more than men- but merely abruptly of existent Gods. The earliest

Pharaohs were seen as some sort of priest-doctor, or holy work forces with about

mystical powers, sometimes have oning carnal dress suits and & # 8220 ; the face fungus of their

goat-flocks & # 8221 ; ( Course Packet, 6 ) . Their constructs of jurisprudence had everything to

make with being & # 8220 ; able to prolong the full state by holding bid over the

Nile inundation & # 8221 ; ( Course Packet, 7 ) . The Pharaoh was an almighty power and

was able to command everyone and everything- in all lands. The Egyptian

people were said to believe that He controlled the rain in other lands

because, as they felt, that rain was nil but a Nile in the sky- and why

shouldn & # 8217 ; t he command it? The Egyptians besides believed, in concurrence with

belief in the Pharaoh, that there was a sense of & # 8220 ; & # 8216 ; Ma & # 8217 ; at & # 8217 ; , which may hold the

significance of order, truth, justness, harmonizing to it & # 8217 ; s context & # 8221 ; ( Course Packet,

13 ) . Ma & # 8217 ; at was believed to command the Nile. When there was a period of

Ma & # 8217 ; at, the Nile was sort to the people, giving them favourable tides and

inundations. Normally, the anti-Ma & # 8217 ; at times were in between Pharaohs, and when

the Pharaohs were reanointed, Ma & # 8217 ; at was restored. This all contributed to the

Egyptians & # 8217 ; belief in jurisprudence and order and the constructs that were held by the

Egyptians in loving their Pharaoh of egypt and seeing that their love was what makes

their lives better. The lone fright involved may hold come with the power that

the Pharoah & # 8217 ; s had. The citizens may hold feared the Pharoah & # 8217 ; s power over

the Nile and other miscellaneous natural occurences, but it was besides in the

Pharoah & # 8217 ; s best involvements to maintain everything running swimmingly. He did this

because Pharoahs, when their powers began to decline, they were ceremonially

sacrificed. ( Course Packet, 6 )

Equally far as ancient Mesopotamia goes, the Code of Hammurabi was the

specifying papers of it & # 8217 ; s clip. It is seen as a papers of prophetic

proportions because its thoughts, such a pe

rsonal hurt, condemnable jurisprudence, and

others would be considered just even to this twenty-four hours. It besides, nevertheless, made no

reference of faith. The codification besides praises Hammurabi, lauding him for

doing justness to predominate in His land and for destructing the wicked and the

evil. This was so because Hammurabi loved his people and wanted to be

loved by them, all the piece maintaining societal order. He set regulations for legal

process and so stated the punishments for the offenses such as unfair

accusal, false testimony, and unfairness done by Judgess. Besides, Torahs on

belongings rights, loans, sedimentations, and debts were inacted. In perchance the

most modern Torahs, he put into topographic point Torahs which offered equal protection to

all of the categories of society ; they sought to protect the weak and the hapless,

and adult females and even kids in a clip when they were considered belongings.

Hammurabi & # 8217 ; s just Torahs and judgement made him loved and be followed by his

people, non merely because he, excessively, had been called upon by the Supreme beings to

protect this land from the & # 8220 ; wicked and the evil & # 8221 ; .

For the instance of the ancient Hebrews, they believed in and followed

their true swayer, God. They had faith in His commandments and followed

them to the missive. They do this, of class, out of love. They love their Supreme being

and make non needfully fear him. They want please him, so any fright that they

may hold is one of failure to delight the God that they love. A chief portion of

this theory is their construct of the Torahs. They believed that jurisprudence, since it

came from their God, it is good, and they should follow it. Failure to make so,

in their heads, would hold meant disobeying God, and that was no good.

The footing of these Torahs were the Ten Commandments, which lead the

Israelitess in all facets of their lives. This footing was founded entirely on their

faith and the beliefs associated with it. They could fear the wrath of God,

if you angered him, as the Egyptians did, but their love for him was stronger

than the fright of his power.

With a set of stealers, nevertheless, regulation is of a different kind. Whoever

had the most power at the clip had all the power. That is all that it is about-

power. If you have it, you can command the set ; if you do non, person

else will take it from you. Along with this power came an component of fright.

These condemnable societies had no moral codification, killing and wounding meant

nil, so, even in the most evolved of condemnable societies, the Mafia, you

can be killed if person more powerful than you inquiries your dedication or

character. Order was kept, merely like in other societies, but it was enforced in

a different mode. Peoples in a Pharoah & # 8217 ; s Egypt followed his regulation because

they loved him and did non desire to dissapoint him, non that they feared his

power. The subordinates in a complex organized offense mob follow the

leader & # 8217 ; s regulation because they feared his wrath. This alone kept them from traveling

against the constituted regulation, non love.

All the leaders of the societies shown had complete power over their

people, except for the set of stealers. Through love and trust, the leaders

of the antediluvian Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and the ancient Hebrews had that

in common. They could govern without bring oning the component of fright, their

topics loved them because they were good, and their regulations were thought to

be good, every bit good. If the swayers were happy, and the people were happy, so

the Nile would flux, order would be integral, and God would be happy.