While some may see being disobedient to the government as wrong, it is better than desiring to harm people for the sake of civil liberties. For example, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were able to use peaceful measures such as refusing to give up her bus seat and the March on Washington, respectively, to pave the way for African-Americans to have their rights as U.S. citizens. Had Parks and King been bellicose when faced with animosity, they might not have succeeded in their …show more content…
After all, the American Revolution was successful, and weren't they violent? In that case, why is it wrong to fight against what are perceived as unjust laws? And isn't it just taking the weak, "easy" way when one desires to be civil in disobedience?
Civil disobedience is not weak, nor is it easy by any means. The natural human reaction when one has been wronged is one of anger and a desire for vengeance. As we all know, it is not easy to fight against human nature. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that those who fight unfair laws by civil disobedience rather than violent means are stronger mentally than others. It takes a person with a strong will to swallow injustice and not desire to harm those who wrong them.
People who participate in civil disobedience serve as examples for those who are not willing, too scared, or are unable to stand up for themselves, especially when they become martyrs for their cause. Those who fight peacefully do get things done. After all, without Martin Luther King Jr., we would have much less racial equality. Therefore, we can conclude that peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a