CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND TERRORISM IN THE THOUGHT OF MICHAEL WALZER

Abstract

The obedience to the state is a dubious question to the political philosophy. Specially whether it’s faced by a moral perspective, because the positive law hardly prescribes the necessary to cover all question about citizens’ rights and minorities groups’ rights. So, it’s not impossible think about a “right to disobey”, it seems a common sense in ethics. However, would there be a “duty to disobey”, morally talking? This question, in the context of Michal Walzer’s philosophy, acquires a own way, because disobeying a bigger society is just justified by obeying a smaller group, inside the state, that claims divergent positions of the big society ”“ arguing that the positive law is not so fair for them, or that they are not covered by those laws. So the fundamental question is when the moral obligation of those minor groups became greater than the duty of obeying the greater society? How is justified this kind of disobedience? Talking about disobeying is necessary seeing the limits of those actions. Those limits will be argued based in human rights. It’s in this matter, that it’s questioned about terrorism and your way of action in the hodiernal society. The argument used in favor of terrorism argues about a morally clear question: it’s a limit situation, so that it’s justified to be used like a limit resource. So, appear two sub themes: the terrorism is, in fact, the “last resource”? Then, if it’s the “last resource”, it would be justified?