The normative debate in political theory concerning the moral justifiability of unlawful actions aimed at supporting, creating, or improving public institutions, or counteracting institutional dysfunctions, has mostly focused on the role of ordinary citizens. Less attention has been given to public servants’ contestatory uses of power of office and the conditions for their moral justification. This thesis aims to fill this gap, as understanding how public servants’ expressions of dissent in their institutional capacity contribute to enhancing (or hampering) institutional well-functioning is crucial.

The thesis examines the ethical challenges concerning the moral justification of public servants’ uses of power of office to express dissent by analyzing acts such as conscientious objection, whistleblowing, noble cause corruption, and outright disobedience to laws or orders. In particular, it aims to answer several important open questions regarding the conceptual and normative status of public servants’ expressions of dissent, such as: What, if anything, is special about public servants’ expressions of dissent? What could ground, from a moral point of view, public servants’ engagement in expressions of dissent? Do public servants sometimes have a moral duty to disobey their public institution’s rules? What do public servants’ expressions of dissent reveal about the normative properties of institutions and their well-functioning?