Max Weber’s ethics
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088219854780 |
| Published date | 01 October 2020 |
| Author | Richard Ned Lebow |
| Date | 01 October 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088219854780
Journal of International Political Theory
2020, Vol. 16(3) 305 –322
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1755088219854780
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Max Weber’s ethics
Richard Ned Lebow
King’s College London, UK
Abstract
I offer a critique of Weber’s two ethics. The first layer is internal and concerned with
their logics. The second layer considers the external knowledge necessary to apply
them appropriately and argues that it is extremely difficult to come by. The third layer
connects Weber’s ethics to his politics because the choice of either ethic in almost
any context is a value choice. This is apparent in Weber’s application of these ethics
to Germany foreign policy. He used his ethics in a rhetorical way to justify his values
rather than using these values as a guide to policy assessment. This reversal is endemic
to politics. One response might be to stipulate beforehand the kinds of policies that are
unacceptable in democracies regardless of their expected outcomes.
Keywords
Conviction, ethics, Max Weber, rationalization, responsibility, value trade-offs
Max Weber’s Munich lecture of January 1919, later reworked and published as “Politik
als Beruf” [The Vocation and Profession of Politics], became a classic in political theory
and international relations. The essay was written in the immediate aftermath of World
War I when the new Weimar Republic faced violent opposition on the right and the left.
Many democracies face a similar, if less extreme, form of polarization today, making
Weber’s thoughts about the problem topical and worthy of examination from the per-
spective of the challenges we confront. His essay is also worth revisiting because of what
it says about the relationship between politics and ethics and the ways in which the latter
is much more likely to shape the former than the other way around.
I connect Weber’s ethical arguments to his political goals and show how the former
were crafted to support the latter. I evaluate his two ethics on their own terms and develop
a conceptual and empirical critique. I contend that the two ethics are entangled in ways
that make it difficult to draw a meaningful distinction between them. The ethic of
Corresponding author:
Richard Ned Lebow, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Email: nedlebow@gmail.com
854780IPT0010.1177/1755088219854780Journal of International Political TheoryLebow
research-article2019
Article
306 Journal of International Political Theory 16(3)
responsibility (Verantwortungsethik) in particular requires advance knowledge about the
likely outcomes of policy options. This information is generally not available, especially
in the kinds of situations involving the use of violence where Weber thinks it most appro-
priate. Weber advocates combining both ethics but does not provide any criteria for their
application, singly or in tandem. In their absence, it is easier for political leaders to con-
vince themselves and their publics that they have acted responsibly when the reverse
may be the case. I go on to ask what, if anything, might be done to save Weber’s formula-
tion and make it a more useful standard, or at least starting point, for policymaking or its
evaluation.
I begin with a discussion of Weber’s politics and the tension, if not contradiction,
between his liberalism and belief in the need for a strong leader. I then describe his two
ethics and develop my critique of them. The first part of this critique is internal and con-
cerned with their logics. The second layer considers the kind of external knowledge
necessary to apply them appropriately, and just how difficult it is to come by. The third
layer of critique brings us back to Weber’s politics because both ethics and the choice
between them—as Weber recognizes—ultimately reflect the values of policymakers. I
look at how Weber applied the two ethics in wartime Germany. He used his ethics in a
rhetorical way to justify his values rather than using these values as a guide to policy
assessment. This reversal between goals and ethics is in the nature of politics. One effec-
tive constraint might be stipulating beforehand the kinds of policies that are unacceptable
in democracies regardless of their expected outcomes.
Weber’s politics
Max Weber feared that the modern world would be caught between the Scylla of Jacobin
dictatorship and the Charybdis of unchecked bureaucracy. He sought to defend liberal-
ism as an alternative to both evils but was increasingly pessimistic about its success. In
the Western world, and especially in Germany, he worried that self-confidence and
independence of thought and action—values he thought foundational to a liberal outlook
on life—were on the decline They were being replaced by a single-minded focus on
material acquisition and with it, a narrowing of perspective and commitment from nation
to individual and long-term goals to more immediate forms of satisfaction. The spirit
(thumos) that had sustained national projects like unification was fast giving way to
appetite.
Weber had no solution to either problem. His Munich lecture and Politik as Beruf
must be read against his May 1895 inaugural lecture in which he criticized Bismarck for
stifling the development of a political class that might have educated and led the German
nation. In its absence, Germany was a country lacking in political maturity, infused with
“vulgar” nationalism and led by a monarch woefully ill equipped for the task (Weber,
2000a). In 1919, he nevertheless looked back with nostalgia on Bismarck and hoped for
another strong leader who could impose his will on the country and put an end to violent
street politics. Politik as Beruf characterizes Germany as a leaderless democracy. Its
professional politicians lack the “inner, charismatic qualities that make for a leader”
(Weber, 2000c). The only solution is the direct election of a passionate, responsible, and
intelligent man as president of the Republic.
To continue reading
Request your trial