A moral como motivação para a desobediência civil em Rawls

Abstract

The following final paper has the objective of analyzing the civil disobedience presented in the book “A theory of justice”. The problem presented in the research was based on the following reasoning: is it possible to justify the moral foundation of civil disobedience according to Rawls? My interest in the specified subject has its roots in 2013, with protests that were initially related to rising prices in bus fares, but that intensified and led to the impeachment of then president Dilma Roussef, and culminated in the prosecution of Brazil’s ex-president Lula, in 2016. The objective is understanding what can be more harmful to the individual, civil disobedience or blind obedience, since being cohesive with laws, the desire for a democratically organized and almost fair society becomes closer to being achieved. The moral appeal of civil disobedience must be justified when all the legal means of seeking consolidation to one’s rights have been exhausted. The methodology used was bibliographical research in the aforementioned work by John Rawls, as well as scientific articles and commentators on the author’s work, and aims to carry out an analysis regarding understanding more or less fair, democratically organized and plural societies, and how the morally correct individual fits into this context. This idea of justice, today, encompasses all sectors of the individual’s life, who often finds themselves excluded from an almost fair society where he should fit in, according to the authors. In a society that should be just and democratic, if justice is not being applied formally, should the individual appeal to all means in their disposal to achieve this equality? It is concluded that, once all attempts at agreements have been exhausted, citizens have a moral duty to resort, together with their peers, to civil disobedience, as the person who appeals is part of this society.