Weber Politics As A Vocation Analysis

I agree with Weber’s argument as argued in his essay “Politics as a Vocation.” He surmised that conventional morality does not have a place in the political arena. Rather, different codes of ethics are more appropriate. He differentiates these codes as “ethic of ultimate ends” or “ethic of responsibility.” Ethic of ultimate ends is acting in good intention, without considering the possible consequences. The ethic of responsibility, on the other hand, requires dealing with the results of one’s actions. To fully analyze and explain his arguments, I believe they can best be summarized in three ways: the nature of the state, the nature of political morality, and the nature of the politician. In relation to the world of politics, Weber states, “The world is governed by demons and he who lefts himself in for politics, that is for power and force as means, contracts with diabolical powers.” The use of demon is in reference to early Christians and suggests that those who govern are at odds with their theology. He then goes on to claim that, “for his action it is not true that good can follow only good and evil from evil, but that …show more content…
Weber argues that the use of force as power of means of politics is what alters the morality of it. He heavily invokes the military as an example of the differing moral dilemmas present in the idea of fighting for peace. This is another example of bad deeds made for the sake of good outcomes. While killing is morally reprehensible, killing for the state absolves the individual of moral responsibility because the state does not adhere to conventional morality, but rather specialized ethics. The state operates by what is necessary, not necessarily what is right. This is supported by Walzer’s assertion that politicians “have to be willing to use necessary means” and that war is necessary as means of community protection (Dirty Hands 164, Emergency Ethics