Tentative Response - Weber

3. Weber makes a distinction between the ‘ethic of absolute ends’ and the ‘ethic of responsibility’ and applies it to parties and political actors and groups in Germany. What does he see as the difference (and how might it apply in contemporary American politics?) Is the Marxism we talked about an ‘ethic of absolute ends’?

Weber sees the 'ethic of absolute ends' and the 'ethic of responsibility' as contrasting moral systems. The 'ethic of absolute ends' is similar to what Kant advocates- acting based on principle without regard for the consequences. It is the system being followed when "The Christian does rightly and leaves the results to the Lord" (23). The ethic of responsibility is essentially the opposite- "one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's actions" (23). Under the ethic of responsibility, one can justify harmful or bad actions if they lead to an overall beneficial result- "the ends justify the means." Under the ethic of absolute ends, one cannot justify such actions, at least in theory. 

I would argue that Marx operates under an ethic of responsibility more than under an ethic of absolute ends. He is very aware of and driven by the consequences that would come from an uprising of the proletariat; namely, a society with less class inequality and more personal fulfillment for the worker. The ethic of responsibility is also reflected by Marx's view that inequality, and worsening inequality, is actually a powerful driver of change. He can accept a bad situation temporarily because he believes it will lead to good consequences down the road.