Kant, Thucydides, And Weber's Views On Human Nature

Kant, Thucydides, and Weber collectively agreed on one premise – human nature directly affect the political actions of a state, whether they be moral or immoral. Given the different time periods each of these political theorists studied in, each man had vastly different ideas on the consequences of human nature on political actions, or vice versa. Thucydides was a consequentialist, Kant was a staunch deontologist, and Weber believed that both consequentialism and deontology had their own place within the realm of politics. Thucydides lived in a time when lands were strife with war, and strong nations overpowered weaker states in order to amass an empire. This brutal landscape shaped the way in which Thucydides viewed human nature. He
Individuals interact with the world by using reason, their senses, and understanding. Kant heavily emphasizes reason and autonomy within the social structure because that is the basis of human interactions. As a strict deontologist, Kant believes that actions must have universality – treat every action as if that action were to become a universal law. Accordingly, he believes that the actions themselves are more important than the consequences of the actions. He believed that it was an individual’s duty to act according to morality rather than self-interests and passions. Therefore, he believed that ethics and morality played a large role in international relations, unlike Thucydides. However, Kant believed that war was always immoral according to the universal law, and stated that “the greatest problem for the human species…is that of attaining a civil society which can administer justice universally” This quote states that justice should be applied, not only to the citizens of the state, but also other states and nations. Only then will perpetual peace
Weber cared about the individual and believed that an action is only just if the individual takes into account the attitude of others, and the action is oriented in the best course for the most number of people. Therefore, Weber is an idealist and a consequentialist. Weber believed that human behavior is caused by various motivations, some evil and some good, each which could have good or bad consequences. To be considered a state, a state must use legitimate force in order to control internal violence. The legitimacy of a state is defined by its social contract with the people who are members of that state. The idea of a social contract is adopted by all three political theorists, thus verifying its importance. For a state to establish internal control, there must be an agreement between the citizens of the state and the state itself. In order to preserve security and keep the ‘human machine’ running, the state must first concentrate on its internal affairs. The ‘human machine’ is run by consequentialist politicians and deontological bureaucrats. Weber establishes that “He who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force requires a following, a human ‘machine.’” Therefore, Weber agrees with Kant that absolute justice needs to be attained within society and between states, whereas Thucydides believes that justice should only be achieved within a state. Weber believes there should be