Machiavelli and Weber: Comparing Political Philosophies Essay

school of thought is referred to as a set of beliefs, concepts and attitudes held by an one-on-one or a meeting of people. It is the study of problems in cosmopolitan and the prescription of solutions to problems based on critical and systemic analyses and the employment of rational argument. Philosophy through the lens of governmental Science does so as mentioned in a higher place in bounds of the country, the ecesis of the offer the ethics of an individual in possession of political power. Political philosophers focus on the issues relating to the take, such as political carry through that need or need non be taken and the general behavior of a given individual heterogeneous in governance. With the focus set on just the relegate, political feignion and frenzy, two philosophers micturate critically analyzed politics through the triad concepts listed supra Niccolo Machiavelli and Max weber. They each bring their own suasions, opinions and suggestions that both have similarities and resistences considering the cultural and temporal inconsistency among the both of them. The fact that well-nigh of their ideas intersect is fascinating.Niccolo Machiavelli, cognize as the founding father of modern Political Science, stomachd between 1469 and 1752 in Florence in what is known today as Italy. He is not scarce known for his work in politics and diplomacy, as he was also a well-versed historian. He employed the method of citing historic figures and events in his justification for the suggestions he made in his famous adjudge The Prince. In the book that was dedicated to Lorenzo Medici, Machiavelli raises m either important aspects relating to the political environment, governance and ethics of an individual in possession of political power citing political actions that should and should not betaken, the order briefly and violence in judicature which is studied by political philosophers today as in that respect ar many ancient concepts an d practices mentioned in the text that dope still be incorporated into modern political practices.Max weber famously known as one of the terce founders of modern Sociology, lived between 1864 and 1920 in Germany. Although he specialized in the field of Sociology, Weber did delve into the world of politics. His methods differ from that of Machiavelli as time progressed, so did society and the knowledge possessed by mankind. Instead of employing the method of historical analysis in his philosophy of politics, Weber utilizes Sociology in his analysis of the political realm. In his groundbreaking es vocalize name Politics as a Vocation, Weber explores the world of politics through political actions based on social implications be it skilful or bad and weighing the benefits against cost. He goes on to mention the posit and its rights of governance in which violence is also cited. This document is also of engage to those in the field of politics, as his definition of the secern has become the general dread of Western social thought.In this paper, I would argue that although their opinions on governance may be antithetical on the outlook, they shell out a parity, which tummy be detected through analyzing their philosophies cargonfully. This also means that they share differing views on the concepts of political action, the state and violence which will also be analyzed in this paper.NICCOLA MACHIAVELLIIn his book, The Prince, Machiavelli foc expends his attention on counseling and educating the prince, Lorenzo Medici in the treacherous world of politics. The book is considered in simple terms a manual to being the prince. As such, he elaborates on an array of ideas relating to politics. For the purpose of this paper, the content of his writing will be analyzed through the three concepts listed above. In terms of political action, Machiavelli writes about cruelty and violence and the straight-laced use of the evil act of cruelty. He admits that cruelty c an and should be apply wisely once within arule as he explains in his words _Injuries therefore, should be inflicted all at the selfsame(prenominal) time, for the less they are tasted, the less they offend._ (Cahn, 2011, p. 260). He then goes on to say that after that one infliction of injury, the prince should graduatedly distribute benefits in wasted quantities successively (Cahn, 2011, p. 260). Machiavelli raises a mature point in his explanation above as when people are constantly subject to miseries, injuries and misfortune, they will in the end grow weary of it and revolt, however if the need for the use of cruelty arises and is employ in the princes governance at one point of time, it is only felt once and can sometimes be forgiven through time.It is prefatory knowledge from daily observation that repetitive actions can be genuinely irritating and that understanding can be applied in Machiavellis justification for the use of cruelty. As for the distribution of benefi ts after the fact of cruelty, it plant life well as Machiavelli states that the subjects can fully savor the uncorruptedness of the benefits if they are given in small quantities successively. After being treated with cruelty, the gradual distribution of benefits would show the subjects that it can only get better from there on and would appease the subjects. This concept can be seen today in many mannikins of government, where benefits such as tax recurrences or any form of government assistance is always given in small amounts and in monthly or yearly intervals.This is where Machiavelli relates political action to violence. The state can also be related to Machiavellis desire of political action. done his writings, Machiavelli was seen as an individual who detested representative governments or republics and therefore refers to the state as the princes possession which meant that the prince was the state. As such, the prince or the state was loosen to act in a way that it s ees fit for the greater good of the state itself. Machiavellis conception of the state suggests that he believes a opposite set of moral rules apply to the state and that it is unreasonable for the state to act just like a secureness person would act.MAX weberIn his essay titled _Politics as a Vocation_, Max Weber explores the world of politics through the lens of Sociology. As Weber delves into the lecture,he begins by stating that politics exist exclusively in the realm of the raise and between states. This leads Weber to defining state in his own words, _Today, however, we have to say that a state is a gentleman community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the countenance use of physical force within a given territory_. (Weber, 1919, p.1). Weber, uniform Machiavelli, believed that the violence and cruelty could be incorporated into governance however with the unadorned use of the term consistent. The idea of legitimate violence is indefinite in a experience of w hat is considered legitimate violence? The ambiguity of the term has created a grey-zone for which the definition of legitimate violence can be debated.However, convocation from his ideas and considering his position in the timeline of political philosophers, Webers understanding of legitimate violence can be explained as violence that is state authorize to protect the majority of the people within a state. This means that the state can use violence to halt the advance of individuals who commit crimes that legal injury the state as a whole in which the greater good of the state is the reason for violence rather than personal gain. For example, in the recent 2010 Toronto G20 Summit bacchanalias, those who were involved in the rioting were subject to violence from the legal philosophy (who are authorized by the state to act on its behalf) who arrested the rioters. The riot was a scatheful act carried out by a group of citizens and by using violence, the police were able to curb the threat and return downtown Toronto to its regular daily life. Webers definition of the state and his use of the term legitimate violence satisfactorily connects the three concepts listed above. summaryComparing the ideas of Machiavelli and Weber, there are some notable similarities although the two philosophers lived in different points in history and also in different move of Europe. There are also some clear differences in their view of politics which will be listed. Both Machiavelli and Weber condone to state sanctioned violence with the purpose of the greater good of the public, however their views on the degree of violence differ substantially. For Machiavelli, he believed that cruelty and violence should be used only once and it can vary in degrees depending on thecircumstances. This means that Machiavelli condones to excessive use of violence in one unity use. As for Weber, his idea of the legitimate use of violence would imply that the violence used would be used in a w ay that it is not excessive and used only to temporarily disable rather than harm permanently. Their views on the state are also quite similar and different at the same time.Machiavelli refers to the state as the princes possession dapple Weber referred to the state as an entity that had the power to use legitimate violence. The similarity between the two ideas is the fact that they both agree the state has rights that regular citizens do not. The difference is that Machiavelli believed the prince was able to act freely (wisely) in any way he seen fit to achieve success. Weber on the other hand believed that violence should only be used against those who threaten the rest and security of the state rather than personal gain.Machiavellis philosophy can be seen as a to a greater extent than realistic view of human nature and his suggestions are more appealing as they are more practical to individual gain. He is one of the few philosophers that acknowledges and condones to evil as m any philosophers tend to write only on how men should live rather than how men actually live. Weber also has a sense of practicality in his views but is more downplayed and fair as violence or evil in his opinion was to be used to maintain wild pansy and order within the state.After the analysis of the two philosophers, it can be concluded that although their views may seem very different, they are in a way similar. Their views on violence are both the same to a point and also different when they delve further into explaining more into the concept. Their conception of the state are also similar to a point until it was exposit upon which clear differences could be seen. They both agreed violence could be used in governance however the degree and actual purpose differed when analyzed. In terms of their conception of the state, they both agreed that the state has rights that normal citizens were not in possession of to carry out violence.However, Machiavellis definition of the state was the princes possession while Webers definition of the state is a government within a territory that is authorized to use legitimate physical violence. Webers definition of the state is more relevant to the modern understanding of the state as it is the basis of understanding the relationship between the state and itspeople where the enforcement of law comes into play. Machiavellis viewpoint was more individualistic and focuses more on the politician itself than the state and the greater good for the public. As Thomas Hobbes said, there is a difference between the transferring of power to an entity rather than an individual. Of course, Machiavelli did write _The Prince_ well before Thomas Hobbes time.ReferencesCahn, S. M. (2011). _Political Philosophy_. rising York, NY Oxford University Press.Weber, M. (1919). _Politics as a Vocation_. Retrieved fromhttp//www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/ethos/Weber-vocation.pdf.