When faced with injustices, it is much easier to say that one would act against them than to do so physically or verbally. In Franz Kafka's "In the Penal Colony", when invited, an explorer is subjected to an inhumane execution in which the accused are mercilessly murdered with inscriptions of their crimes. The officer, the only surviving supporter of the procedure, hopes that the explorer will accept these methods; but if he does not do so, the officer himself chooses to be put to death by the unjust machine. The explorer's response, the absence of any remote notion of stopping the officer, reveals his internal conflict between acting or not acting, his strong sense of self-preservation, and his small sense of sympathy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay As the officer undresses to be placed in the machine, “The explorer bit his lips and said nothing” (220), as if stopping. himself to use his power to arrest the officer. This reveals an internal conflict within the explorer, in which he is reluctant to act but is aware that he should. Even when simply discussing the procedure itself, the explorer states: “I was already wondering whether it would be my duty to intervene and whether my intervention would have any chance of success” (216). So this doubt is a combination of both his ability to succeed and the need for him to make the effort up front. The explorer's doubt manifests itself through his action by biting his lips as if not to say something and therefore not to act. This hesitation reveals a somewhat cowardly aspect of the explorer's character, as well as an insecurity about his power of influence. This internal conflict and cowardice is also apparent when the narrator states that "If the legal proceedings which the officer cherished were really so near their end - perhaps as a result of [the explorer's] own intervention in which he felt engaged…” (221), wondering whether or not he is responsible for the officer’s choice by his mere presence. The explorer seems aware of having influenced the officer, even though he had previously told him: “I can neither help nor hinder you” (213). His conflict between believing he has no influence but also seeing his impact to some extent, but deliberately not acting to influence the officer and acting to save his life, then leans more towards a selfish motive. The psychological struggle and selfishness that the explorer endures, however, is quickly overshadowed by his instinct for self-preservation, especially when the situation does not directly affect him. The narrator describes that “[The explorer] knew very well what was going to happen, but he had no right to hinder the officer in anything” (220-221). Knowing the consequences of allowing the policeman to put himself in the machine, the explorer justifies the failure to save the man's life by saying that it was not his choice and that it would not have no impact on him. In this way, he becomes much more invested in his own well-being and declares that he "...is leaving early tomorrow morning, or at least boarding [his] ship" (217) because he is able to escape the roots of evil. the problem and will no longer be visible, it will no longer exist for him, as proven when he "... left the tea room and headed towards the port" (226) at the first opportunity to escape from the colony. The explorer even convinces himself that “…the officer was doing the right thing; in his place, the explorer would not have acted otherwise” (221). He realizes that the execution system is immoral with his very clear statement ".