GLOBALIZATION AND THE CRISIS IN LAW: RETHINKING ETHICS AND MORALS IN THE POSTMODERN STATE

SUMMARY This test aims a critical analysis on the technological and economic globalization and its impact on positive law, with its formal face normativista logic the contexts that are increasingly complex and changeable. Starting from this premise, it is intended to assess how the ethics and morals can serve from the North in this paradigm shift that is necessary for an application of the law that best meets the aspirations of the citizen in a society in constant change. The aim is to analyze the role of the right under this new globalization bias and its relevance to the modern man.


INTRODUCTION
Is General sabença that the trajectory of the man on the planet, starting in the caves given the means to move on, which is why still engrossed to everything you see around you feeling helpless and unprepared to face this new reality.
To analyze all this global problem is the patent law has been endeavouring to plumbing and driving of the conflicts and clashes have arisen within society, which is why one should speak not only in a radical and urgent, in a total fitness of concepts traditionally used, in such a way that, in the same way as the man came out of the cave the right also do the same way and come to find that modern man in the midst of a chaotic society, a globalized world, and an experience of widespread conflicts at all levels.

POSITIVIST LAW AND FORMAL LOGIC
It is not possible to speak in positivism in legal field without tow to the figure of Hans Kelsen. In fact, although it is considered the father of positivism is worth highlighting that all ab initio positivist doctrine was being built over the years and had his leading role in the development of law as a science.
For Kelsen, the law should be understood as norma, divorced from any social or evaluative design. Just think of this mode is that the centerpiece of his work, known as pure theory of law, is the release of that legal science to all the content, by the optics of Kelsen, not her own. By proposing that split the German jurist aims to give legal autonomy science of its own, entirely free of elements that do not belong to them.
For Kelsen pure legal science should be unmistakable to psychology, sociology, politics and morals. Although such Sciences relate in some way to the right and cross your way most of the time, yet the legal science cannot be impregnated with such RC: 2287 Disponível em: https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br/ethics/globalization The positivist jurist Hans Kelsen (2001:36), already mentioned in this text, brings an important contribution to the understanding of this theme ethics and morals in the right.
In his work "what is justice", the German scholar so is expressed: While recognizing the right as the social order specific coercive technique, we can compare it with other social orders which, in part, they pursue the same objectives that the law, but by different means. The law is specific social medium, not an end. The law, morality and religionall three prohibit murder. But the law does so providing that: If a man commits murder, another man, designated by law, applies against the killer, some degree of coercion prescribed by the legal order. Morality simply require: thou shalt not kill.
It is noteworthy that although morale has not the power and strength to establish a sanction for their disobedience, as does the right, still it cannot be neglected by scholars of law, since even before the right positivado with their moral standards and concepts already was used by primitive societies as a means to guide and lead the relationships in the social conviviality.
Therefore, the distinction between the moral and legal principle is a fine line and they often go together and next and which are separated only by its effects. Let us take as an example a son that when passing by his father and receives a compliment does not reciprocate the same courtesy, or even distracts, such behavior is a moral offense for which there is a legal pain. However, if this same son, to be greeted by his father causes a personal injury, in this case commits crime provided for in planning and must be punished.

CONCLUSION
Before all that was spoken, the right needs to abandon this dogmatic and closed assuming at the moment and must walk towards a more plural. In this globalized world, with all the strands have pointed out, there is no more room for a rigid, univocal vision and extremely formal, on the contrary, one can speak now in multiplicity of social actors (lawyers, judges, psychologists, technicians) and pluralism of legal institutes which best meets the concerns that modern society, including arbitration, mediation and conciliation.
The current moment leads to replacement of the individualization of the role of the judge in a process of shared responsibility of other actors involved in the collective process of social changes (the actors outside the judiciary, like the pros retromencionados), all United in search of a solid, palpable and concrete solution to meeting the needs of current man. The judiciary must promote and facilitate the production of experiences that promote the connection between himself and society instead of disjunction, of fragmentation and remoteness of the citizen of your longing for justice.
In this note, the judiciary itself should encourage partnerships and harmonization of legal practices with the institutes already mentioned that if you know by experience, has been able to give a more adequate and satisfactory return to the citizen. Should not exist here afraid of competition, much less the fear of seeming contradictions that may come to emerge in the midst of this process of change. The contradictions must be worked and not deleted, since even though some of them may seem a priori, insurmountable, yet they must not remain paralysed or leakage, and the history of science is made of construction and deconstruction of paradigms and overcoming of paradoxes. Therefore, for any change there is need for the judiciary to open up the production of experiences that encourage the multiplicity of knowledge and legal practices, encouraging the partnership, even between differing perspectives and theories of the current "status quo". There must be the search for dialogue with the ' social movements ' and other actors that deconstruct the traditional forms and burocratizadas of citizen participation in their own history.
Today, more than ever, there is an urgent need to understand that legal-political role is playing the challenges that present themselves today to the modern man (or postmodern) and realise that all production of work aimed at structural change has social implications, or better saying, that all production comes from certain changes and multiple power relations and force fields.
The walk to the change process, open to the critical sense and transformative potential, depends on the work of critical self-assessment judiciary about the meaning and the consequences of their way of acting. There is need for legal practices are based on the interaction with social needs, with the challenges of globalisation, always making a counterpoint with the current situation of the judiciary, which is scrapped and no minimum conditions to meet the aspirations of the citizens, face excessive demands in place there.
For this reason, the judiciary has to recognize and legitimize other actors who are willing to contribute to the solution of disputes and citizen satisfaction. Instead of the issue of conflict of jurisdiction the judiciary should act to sit at the table with the other professionals in tune with the vital needs of man, beyond the problems singled out and the differences noted. That would be a giant step towards a change of ethics-politics, inductor and driver of the reflection aimed at not just a self-criticism, but also a real change that seeks to put the right on your true path, which is the pursuit of Justice in a globalized world, without forgetting the ethics and morals, and pilasters of a genuine guiding democratic society based on the rule of law.