Greek Law Essays - Legal Ethics, Greeks, Crime, Sumer, Civilization

Greek Law Greek law evolved as a necessary means by which to regulate society's behavior. What had up until then been left up to the whims of each individual to handle on his or her own was now a product of fair and sensible legal procedure. It can be argued that there was a great need for such a show of order in that there existed little or no conformity when it came to retribution. As Greek law continued to be established, it also became a fundamental part of other areas of life, branching out into political and social implications. In essence, the implementation of Greek law was instrumental in determining that the legal process only takes on its full meaning in a broadly political context (Foxhall). I. SUMERIAN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF LAW Prior to the Sumerians introduction of the concept of law, the Greeks followed no organizational legal system whatsoever. The ancient Greek population was much more abundant than the Sumerian population. They had large plots of land essentially keeping people separated from one another, there was no real need for the establishment of laws. As the population grew, so did the need for legal regulation. The Sumerians were frightfully aware of the fact that the primary manner by which people were handling their legal disputes was by method of killing. They determined that this was no longer an acceptable behavior for what was to be considered a civilized society of people. Inevitably, the Sumerian ended up with four legal principles: 1. Lex Talions 2. Mediation 3. Legal Inequality 4. Conjunction of Murder and Accidental Death What was established as the first recognized law came from the fact that revenge played a big role in society's unruliness. As it stood, a person who killed as a means by which to solve a legal dispute was immediately exiled. Secondly, the Sumerians saw the merit of asking advice from those wiser than the average man, and so it was implemented that an arbitrator would be sought out in times of disagreement. However, this person was not an agency of the state. This method of intervention proved to be quite beneficial for the Greeks. The Greeks were not bound by any law to follow the wise man's advice but did so out of logic, common sense, and at times-- respect. For the Greeks, law was what separated men from animals (and from women) and was the basis of civilization (Burt). II. EGYPTIAN RESPONSE Egypt, like all the other ancient civilizations, created law in the image of its own beliefs and needs (Hibbitts). The Egyptians did not readily accept the Greek connotation of what they felt a legal system symbolized. They were more interested in remaining within their own society's framework and utilizing whatever form of law they considered appropriate for them. The Egyptians had a concrete legal system with five major areas: 1. Authoritarian 2. Collective 3. Contract Law 4. Legal Equality 5. Criminal Law They were not very innovative when it came to establishing anything close to the Greek way of law. There was a definite difference between what the Greeks deemed necessary within the confines of legal obligation and what the Egyptians viewed to be the same. III. HEBRAIC MORAL OBLIGATION The Hebraics believed they had a moral obligation to at least recognize the concept of law. They were not as disciplined as the Greeks when it came to implementing a legal system. They were still in tuned to the necessity of civilized law. It can be argued that moral obligation is a considerable force to be reckoned with in light of the pressure it places upon one's conscience. It is for this very reason that the Hebraics pursued the aspect of legalities in the first place. It is not easy to assess as to whether there exists a role for law in moral matters (McTeer). While one might interpret their desire to live as a morally righteous people as being self-sacrificing, the Hebraics were also very aware of how integrating some little bit of legal responsibility being morally rightous. The Hebraics realized without a doubt, reasoning (Keenan) can be a significantly powerful motivator, working its silent magic to effect change and establish action. One can also argue that it is not difficult to understand the connection

Britain in the Second World War Essays

Britain in the Second World War Essays Britain in the Second World War Essay Britain in the Second World War Essay Why did the British government decide to evacuate children from Britains major cities at the start of the Second World War? There were many reasons for the British government deciding to evacuate children from Britains major cities to the countryside at the start of the Second World War. One of the reasons was for the government themselves. By evacuating the children to the countryside it would show or make it seem to the citizens of Britain that the government actually cared about their childrens welfare and that they wanted them kept safe out of harms way. This would make the mothers and fathers of the children feel as if the government were very good which could help them in elections when they came as it would really help boost the popularity of the government. Also, by evacuating the children from the major cities it would take a lot of pressure off the government and the civil defences (emergency services). With about one third of the British population being children it can mean a lot of problems. Children can get up to all types of mischief and cause havoc all over the cities, so it was in the governments best interest to evacuate them elsewhere, out of the way. Also if the children were kept in the cities there could have been a lot of deaths due to the bombing raids, and this could have led to a rebellion and many people asking and wondering why the government werent doing anything about it. With the children gone from the cities it would leave the mothers and fathers to help out and concentrate on the war effort. There was no reason for the children being there, as they were not beneficial to the war effort. There was a lot of ways the parents could help out, for example, the women had civil defence jobs, joined the armed forces and helped to reduce food shortages by joining the Womens Land Army. The women did most of the work because the men were off fighting as it was made compulsory as conscription was introduced. All men between 18 and 40 had to fight except a few who were exempt as they had certain specialised occupations and were needed in them. So, with the children gone the parents could really help out. Other reasons were for the children themselves. If they were kept in the cities, some had a good chance of being killed by the bombing raids. Also a lot of the children might feel traumatised by the constant bombing, especially during the blitz in which the Germans bombed non-stop for 77 days except one, this could drive many people insane. They were evacuated to protect their lives for the future. If they stayed then a lot of the next generation could have been wiped out. Another reason was propaganda. The government could use it against Hitler to say how much of a barbarian he was, wanting to kill their children. This would encourage the parents to evacuate their children from the cities and would probably motivate them to work harder and concentrate even more on the war effort. There were many reasons for the evacuation of the children from the cities to the countryside, but I would say that the idea of keeping them safe and protecting the next generation was the most important one. Word Count: 541 2. Explain the differing reactions of people in Britain to the policy of evacuating children during the Second World War. There were three main people involved in the evacuation of children during the Second World War and they all had different reactions to the policy of evacuating the Second World War. They were the hosts, the parents and the children themselves. The hosts role was to take the children into their homes and look after them as if they were their own until the war had ended. Some of the hosts liked what they were doing, as they felt as if they were playing their part in the war, but others didnt like it at all. Some of the children were actually treated better than they were at their own homes, and now had a higher standard of living, they really enjoyed it, but then for some it was the total opposite. Some children were seen as just a nuisance to some hosts; they were ignored, mistreated and in some cases beaten by the hosts. The hosts were split on what to think about the policy, some liked it, some didnt mind and some hated it, but whatever they thought of it there was nothing they could do about it. But, at least they received some income for the children they took in, so wouldnt have to pay for them themselves.