POL 161 Max Weber Notes
POL 161 Max Weber Notes POL 161.001
Popular in Introduction to Political Theory
Popular in Political Science
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hailey True on Sunday May 1, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to POL 161.001 at Illinois State University taught by Jakeet Singh in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Political Theory in Political Science at Illinois State University.
Reviews for POL 161 Max Weber Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 05/01/16
Max Weber Structure o What does it mean to live a political life o Speculating on the nature of politics o Goes into the question of morality in politics Beginning o Relationship of politics to violence Violence is a moral question. Most think the use of violence as morally wrong or morally questionable Whether violence can be moral Combines with the idea that some view violence as essential to politics o If violence is morally questionable, but necessary for politics, then what does this mean for the relationship between morality and politics o Is there an exception in politics o Is politics moral or ethical Can it be? Weber says politics is defined by the use of violence Says this through a definition of state or government o A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence or physical force within a given territory (78) A state has a monopoly on the right to use violence in a given territory For violence to be acceptable and legitimate, it has to be done by the government/state. The only ones to use it correctly Any other use of violence is a criminal act or an act of war The state is considered the sole right to use violence Plato: also saw government as a body that is inherently violent The auxiliary class o Police/military force Machiavelli: state needs violence Locke: state inherently violent, realm of force End of paper o Problem With the definition of violence, what does that then mean for the question of ethics of politics Since politics require violence, what can the relationship be between ethics and politics o Is it that politics and ethics have nothing to do with one another o Or is it the reverse; is ethics in politics to be judged as any other conduct? can you set one standard of conduct for all? o Weber thinks there must be a different way in judging ethical behavior in politics Can you take Christian standard and apply it to politics? (118) Especially because Christian principles of inherent peacefulness; turning the other cheek o What would that mean for politics? o By Sermon on the Mount …serious matter…this ethic is no joking matter… it is all or nothing. This is meaning of gospel…this command is unconditional (119) No possible reason for using violence, no situational standard for using violence. You cannot and must not use violence ever. o Locke: compartmentalizes teaching of the gospel (the two realms) o Weber: says only saints can abide by the gospel at all times. For ethics of love, cannot resist evil by force However politics must resist evil by force, or you will be held responsible for evil winning. Politicians take this responsibility seriously. A different standard is needed for judging whether political actions (including violent ones) are ethical or not Only saints can be and are held to ethics of nonviolence Two competing ethical standards Lays out that we have a choice to make (120) Ethics of ultimate ends Idea that you leave ultimate judgement (end) to God and you seek to do what is right in the moment. Ethics of love, passivist principle, do not want to do anything that is wrong, only seek to do what is right and leave the outcome to God. A religious maxim (standard) You should have pure intentions and only use pure means Your duty is to remain pure Must not strike back when stricken Take care of your actions here and now Weber finds this ethic politically naïve and immature. These people think only good outcomes come from good means. (which is Gandhi’s belief), but very often, good comes from bad and bad from good. o Ethics of responsibility You must take responsibility for the outcomes brought by your actions and inactions. (not means, but outcomes) What politicians do You must calculate and take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of your actions (125126) In many cases the achievement of ‘good’ ends is inseparable from the use of morally dubious or at least dangerous means. (Machiavellian) o “demons of politics live in the tension of God and love”
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'