One of the signs that a group of people need to have to be established as a civilization is the undeniable existence of laws. The existence of a set of law starts a sense of communalism, wherein the citizens of the community share a common respect for the laws that govern the main essence of their belongingness. The people of the community no matter what interest group they belong to are held fully obliged to follow the tenets prescribed by these laws (Harris, 1977, p. 2). The preservation of the community and the promotion of the welfare of its citizens are held to be the results of the way the laws are recognized by the citizens themselves.
Laws are one of humankind’s clearest attempts to establish a sense of justice, peace and order (Harris, 1977, p. 1). The attempts to create a governing set of structured norms that depend not only on the morality of the act but also on the consequences set in regard to the failure to abide by these laws (Harris, 1977). It can be said that the receptiveness of the subjects of a specific set of laws is established and stratified in its community of application through both fear and reverence.
It can be established that the consequences prescribed by the laws can incite fear. Reverence on the other hand can measure the level of moral fit that the set of laws was able to qualify with the already existing morals and norms of the members of the community. Laws as a result of human innovation and creative attempts to create a better society are not free from flaws and shortcomings. There are laws that upon the evolution of civilizations to become “more civilized” are rendered inapplicable to cater to the needs of society.
There are even laws that lack in terms of sanctions and scope of applications which makes future reference to the law highly contestable and too open for system failures. To compensate for these flaws and shortcomings the creators and subjects of the law have to consolidate a common cause to change the existing laws (Harris, 1977, p. 2). The processes employed in changing such laws usually use the foothold of the observed flaws and shortcomings of the precedent set of laws (Harris, 1977, p. 2).
This is the main line of logic that this paper would adopt in explaining the basic tenets and factored in elements of the three most pronounced set of olden days laws- the Law of Hammurabi, Law of Eshnunna and the Law of Ur-Nammu. These sets of laws came into existence and practice on closely dated era and even on neighboring civilizations in the old Mesopotamia (Bermosa, 2009, p. n. pag. ). These sets of laws appear to have a perfectly set stage for a close study of their differences and similarities.
This paper deems that it is logically coherent to take a look at the similarities and differences to be established further in this paper to trace the history and evolutions by these laws. To be able to do so, this paper will use four parts of discussions. The first three parts of this paper will give the summary of these different set of laws; with emphasis on its common and dominant presented main thesis. The conclusion of this paper will take into consideration the similarities and differences observable in the summaries provided to draw out a holistic and completely justifiable generalization regarding these three sets of laws.