Machiavelli On Violence

Use of physical violence is discussed when analyzing how a political entities should be ruled. German philosopher Max Weber (1864-1920), in his essay Politics as a Vocation, incorporated the “legitimate use of violence” into his definition of state as a state-specific characteristic. Florentine philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) presented physical violence as an absolute necessity in consolidating power . Despite having lived in different centuries and backgrounds, Weber’s and Machiavelli’s political theories show similarities, especially regarding the role of the ruler on conducting the use of violence. They both support the concept of using physical force sanctioned by the state -or the prince- to gain and maintain authority. That being said, their political theories also have intriguing differences. This paper aims to focus on the similarities between Weber’s and Machiavelli’s views on the “use of violence” and analyze the ethical questions that are linked to the use of violence in politics.
Weber, in Politics as a Vocation,
In his book The Prince, he stated that “(…) it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with” (79). With no doubt, it would be ideal to be both feared and loved, which in real life, is impossible. It is preferable to be feared than loved, because men are fickle and always approve of the actions that benefit them. Since the prince has to make decisions that do not necessarily benefit the society, he would quickly lose the love and respect he garnered. He also states that while doing so, the prince should make sure to not to become hated at all costs. Also, “men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared”. On the other hand, “fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli 80). Like Weber, Machiavelli also sees fear as the principal source to maintain