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 observe an inhumane execution in which defendants are mercilessly murdered with inscriptions of their crimes. The officer, the only surviving proponent of the procedure, hopes that the explorer will agree with these methods; however, when he does not, the officer chooses to be put to death by the unjust machine. The scout's response, the lack of any remote idea of ​​stopping the officer, reveals his internal conflict to act or not act, his strong sense of self-preservation, and his little sense of sympathy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As the officer undresses to be placed in the car, “The scout bit his lip and said nothing” (220) as if stopping himself from using his power to stop the officer. It reveals an internal conflict within the explorer, in which he is reluctant to act but is aware that he should. Even simply discussing the procedure itself, the explorer says, "I was already wondering whether it would be my duty to intervene and whether my intervention would have the slightest chance of success" (216). This doubt is, therefore, a combination of both his ability to succeed and his ability to even attempt to begin. The explorer's doubt is manifested through his gesture of biting his lips as if to refrain from saying something and consequently not acting. This hesitation reveals a somewhat cowardly aspect of the explorer's character, as well as an insecurity in his power of influence. This internal conflict and cowardice also appears when the narrator states that "If the judicial procedure so dear to the officer was really so close to the end - perhaps because of the [explorer's] intervention to which he felt committed..." ( 221), questioning whether or not he is responsible for the officer's choice simply by being there. The scout appears to be aware that he has influenced the officer, despite previously saying, “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 not acting to purposely influence the officer and acting to save his life, therefore leans more towards a selfish motive. The psychological struggle and selfishness the explorer endures is, however, quickly overshadowed by his instinct to preserve himself, especially when the situation does not directly affect him. The narrator describes that "[The scout] 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 officer to proceed to put himself in the car, the scout rationalizes not saving the man's life by saying that it was not his choice and that it will have no impact on him. In this way, he is much more interested in his own well-being saying that he "...will leave early tomorrow morning, or at least board [his] ship" (217) because he is able to escape the root of the problem and be free from his sight, will no longer exist for him, as demonstrated when he "... left the teahouse and headed for the port" (226) at the first opportunity to escape the colony. The explorer even becomes convinced that “…the officer was doing the right thing; in his place the explorer would not have acted differently” (221). He realizes that the enforcement system is unethical with his clear statement of "I don't approve of yours.