Blood and Freedom: How Agency Explains and Permits Proscriptions of Violence Anonymous College

Though different in many ways, the writings of Kant, Nietzsche, and Sorel all acknowledge the significant role of violence in man's political affairs. Violence is a powerful tool. None of these men belie its importance, and they all accept that there are portions of society for whom it is right and useful to employ violent measures. In Kant's case, there are two separate frameworks for assessing the right to force. In his essay, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant argues that, in the case of governments, the use of violence is permitted where one can, without contradicting one's purpose, announce one's intention to carry out a violent act in advance. Individuals, on the other hand, may only employ violent means if their actions may be rationally willed as a universal maxim. This, when applied practically, produces a relative monopoly on force by the government that stands in opposition to the theories of both Sorel and Nietzsche. Each of these somewhat more visceral philosophers gives a somewhat free rein to groups outside of the government in employing violent means, albeit for different purposes. But though certain branches of Nietzsche and Sorel's philosophies appear to converge, even these two lay their roots in...