Throughout the development of the civilized world, moral and ethical guidance has been proven a requirement of a stable and healthy culture. Indeed, it may be said that this guidance is one of the major foundations on which a civilization is built. A uniformity of moral belief and behavior provides both safety for the individuals within a society and a structural framework into which that society can develop. It seems impossible that a society would survive, much less flourish with the environment created by an amoral standard. The corruption and desolation of such a world would be far too damaging for any organized development to exist. Because morality has such an intimate relationship with the survival and expansion of a civilization, and because morality is an issue most often regulated by the common belief of the society it governs, studying the ethical behavior and patterns of a self-governing body can provide an astonishing level of insight into that society. Take, for instance, the Babylonians and Hammurabi's Code, the Hebrews and their Exodus from Egypt, and the Christians and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Depending on the expectations of the person reading the texts, the differences between the documents can be so great, it becomes difficult to understand how they could all possibly be related by even the most distant common thread. To others, the similarities are so prevalent that it seems little progress has been made in moral growth.

Equality of the genders is an issue which, although not directly addressed in each of the sources, is made known through underlying themes. The laws written against marital infidelity committed by women are far harsher in Hammurabi's Code, consisting of being drowned, than they are for men, who merely have to pay a fine. Through this law and several others not unlike it, it is made plainly clear that the man is the master of the household, and that the woman is to be seen and kept as a possession with an intrinsic value set by the Code. This value is also dependent on the hierarchal status of the woman. For instance, if a common woman is killed by the actions of a man superior in class, the man may repay her husband one-half a mina of silver for the crime. In this same situation, a slave woman's life is worth only one-third a mina of silver. Through the Hebrew perspective, in Moses' conversation with God during Exodus, God Himself refers to woman as the "neighbor's wife," also as if she were a possession, an object of ownership. Judging from the language used in the passage, it also seems that the audience intended is mostly, if not entirely male. References to "man," and solely masculine names throughout the article do not show any thought for a feminine audience. Only in Christ's sermon do we see some form of equality. While the congregation intended is also predominantly male, upon closer examination it can be seen that concessions are also made in the opposing direction. Women are to be honored and protected, and when Christ speaks of "the merciful" and "the pure in heart," we see an exaltation of traits which are considered to be extremely feminine, even in standards of the time. This hardly provides for equality between the two genders, but does show somewhat more effort exerted to attract and welcome the female audience.

Another subject at which the three beliefs fail to converge is the punishment imposed for breaking the moral code. For the Babylonians, again dependent on social status, the law stated that anything from an equal punishment to a simple fine was to be imposed upon the person who originally committed the crime. It is commonly referred to as the "eye for an eye" belief although this form of retribution was only used when dealing with a criminal equal to or lower than that which the crime was committed against. The only time this belief falters is when a person commits a crime to a person lesser in social stature than himself, in which case, he or she is required simply to pay a fine to the person. The Hebrew text seems also somewhat violent in context, with God speaking of venting His wrath against the Egyptians, and consuming them for their insolent behavior and condemnation. However, one of the major developments is the idea that the debt owed for one's sins is to be repaid after death, in the afterlife. This ethical system has only faith based power. The law was created by God, it is only fitting that he is the one to administer the punishment for breaking that law. Once again, the Christian belief differs. Christ tells of the insubordinance of "an eye for an eye," and instead says that one should love his/her enemies, that the judgment will come in its own due time. Effectively, the Christian belief really holds no cultural moral standard. There is very little written law, and therefore it can be said that the morals found in Christianity are personal ethics, by which one is later judged. Christ's Sermon on the Mount is the only work which promotes a pacifist's belief. It is on a whole different level than Hammurabi's Code and the Exodus. In a world of violence and anger, Christ preaches a belief of peace and love, an innovative concept still surviving today.

One last fundamental point on which the three moral systems all hinge is the foundation behind the systems. With regard to Hammurabi's Code, the law is a very human creation. There is no question that it was Earthly in origin, and therefore people knew to expect an Earthly condemnation for their transgressions. Although many of the punishments were vile and torturous, the people were fully capable of knowing exactly what lay ahead, and knew what risks certain crimes posed. With the Hebrew moral belief, because the foundation lay in such a supernatural origin, the full fathoms of the punishments involved were beyond the sentient comprehension of the believers. Hebrews did, however, have the advantage of knowing exactly that which was a crime. So, while one did not know what would happen after death, one knew what to avoid and how to remain clean of sin. The Christians were given the most precarious of all the three existences. Also a faith-based moral system, Christians were unable to fully understand the extent of the retribution they might be required to pay. To make things yet more complicated, there was very little certain about sin. Beliefs vary from the very strict Puritanical beliefs to the very lenient belief that nothing is important but one's faith in God, one's belief of Jesus, and love for all of God's people. In any case, all that a Christian is capable of doing is creating his/her own moral standard, living by it, and hoping that he/she chose the right path.

When one reads the three sources provided, It is not difficult to create a continuous moral thread running between them, but one must keep in mind that these three sources are a very narrow margin from an extremely broad topic. It is difficult to imagine that there are truly ethic absolutes, and by no means are these sources capable of proving that argument, true or false. It is most likely true that ethics and morality are a function of a very many things, cultural background and personal beliefs being two of the most prominent forgers. Morality differs between individuals, and it's foolish to believe it does not. But for the survival of the society, a unification of the ethics to a large degree is required. This unification is the moral standard.

Inebriated Poet