Emi Ching

Origins of Western Civilization 120-07

11/01/10

Justice Defined

A. Justice can be defined as the implementation of a system of

scruples. In this sense, justice is universal as evidenced by Near Eastern,

Egyptian and Greek societies, which all mimicked that structure in their

organizations. However, it is the way in which right and wrong are

established that then makes justice culturally determined. Each of these

three civilizations exhibited the basic principles of understanding and

grasping an ethical sense, delineating that a moral imperative exists. But it is

the cultures that determined how those principles become defined. From

here, this culturally determined form is then what makes one culture’s

justice more effective than another’s.

In Mesopotamia, the quintessential text of justice is, naturally,

Hammurabi’s Code, the first written form of law. While few historians

consider this transcription to be a literal set of regulations, it does not

diminish its value as a pivotal historical source for ascertaining ancient Near

Eastern justice. Still considering that their main form of law may not really

have been law at all calls into question of effectiveness of Mesopotamian

justice. But such as it is, Hammurabi’s Code, whether or not it was to be

carried out exactly to the text’s specifications, still reflects that universal

sense that there is a correct and incorrect code of conduct. However, the

specificity of these behaviors is what then becomes culturally determined.

Meaning, for instance, the severity of certain crimes and the extent of rights.

Such as the particularly gruesome penalties for offenses against property or

the fact that women were allowed divorce only under the conditions of

cruelty, whereas men could exercise that right for any reason. This shows

the influence of patriarchy on justice, demonstrating one way in which a

cultural factor in this determined this particular Mesopotamian justice.

Egyptian justice can best be typified in their concept of ma’at,

essentially the idea of what is right, what is correct, what is truth, what is

justice. According to Egyptian culture, the kings were charged with keeping

and maintaining ma’at. And in order for society to operate properly, for there

to be harmony and peace, ma’at had to be kept. The king preserved ma’at

by setting down just laws for his people. This notion indicates a kind of

synergy between the strong class divisions of Egyptian society, and also the

custom, in itself is verification for universal justice. Cultural differentiations of

Egyptian justice however can be seen in The Book of the Dead, the

Egyptian’s guide to the afterlife. While this text is merely a handbook and

not a direct form of law, it still provides insight into the Egyptian sense of

justice. The Book of the Dead was a funerary text, aiming to successfully

guide the deceased through the trials in the afterlife. In Egyptian mythology,

once dead, the spirit must pass a test of innocence, having their heart

weighed on a balance against a feather of ma’at. The dead will declare their

innocence before the gods, and belief of innocence itself is a follows the form

of universal justice. However, what the dead declare themselves innocent of

is then what is the culturally determined part of Egyptian justice. This

Egyptian justice, much like the Mesopotamian one, seems somewhat lacking

in construction and still very basic.

However, in ancient Greece, their cultural justice becomes a little more

sophisticated and precise. Hesiod is evidence of this, a fundamental poet and

a staple of ancient Greek culture, he wrote Works and Days as instruction for

his brother, warning him against idleness. Like The Book of the Dead, the

poem is not a text of law, but it still does well to give us a through picture of

Greek culture and justice. The poem seems to be just a lengthy explanation

of the management of daily life with a heavy emphasis on agrarian work, but

there is an underlying truth at its essence – that in Greece, there is a correct

code of conduct, an expectation of certain protocol, much like that of the

other cultures mentioned. The details of the work itself are the evidence for

justice as being culturally determined, as Hesiod’s instructions on domestic

life are Greek-specific. In addition, his lessons seem far less lofty and far

more attainable then other texts of justice previous like Hammurabi’s Code

and The Book of the Dead.

To mention particular poleis, the individual and autonomous city-states

that later rose in Greece, most influential and most noted are Sparta and

Athens. Unlike in Mesopotamian society where their instructions were written

out but rather vaguely and without specific authorities to support it, in Sparta

and Athens, while lacking that single written text, their justice systems

seems far more structured and orderly. Sparta, while known mainly as being
very martial and war-readied, had also a very structured oligarchy. While the

oligarchy maintained that universal theme of justice, the cultural distinctions

for Sparta is evident, for instance, in the surprising equality of women, who

were much more powerful in this society than any other previously studied

here. This is a very culture based aspect of Spartan justice, because Sparta,

being such a military-oriented polis, acknowledged the importance of the

women as they would be the ones to bear the sons to fuel their war machine.

Similarly in Athens, universal justice is apparent, but because of cultural

determinants, forms a different structure from that of the Near East or Egypt

or even its cultural contemporary, Sparta. In Athens, a democracy formed.

This political system portrays what is now defined as universal justice as it

upholds that right and wrong exist. However, what makes Athens’ justice

different, its cultural element, is that equality is the ultimate good in its

society, which is vastly contrasting to all societies preceding it.

At the essence of each of these cultures, justice has a unified and

unanimous definition – that right and wrong exist. There is a universal justice

in the sense that each culture seeks order and practices a method in which

to organize their society to abide by this sense of right and wrong. However,

it is when they define what is right and what is wrong, in the form of each

societies’ own laws, religions, politics and the like, that then become

drastically different from one another, that justice then becomes culturally

determined. Then in turn, its effectiveness becomes contingent upon how it

is applied culturally, as seen in the aforementioned examples. Each society

showed universal justice, displayed cultural justice in its differing definitions,

and then demonstrated varying degrees of effectiveness based on how that

justice was applied.