Patricia Cruz

Moral Responsibility and Justice in “In the Penal Colony”

 

“From the very beginning the explorer had no doubt about what answer he must give… And yet now… he did hesitate…” p. 159

 

“The officer… had turned to the machine… soon he submitted” p. 163

 

These two quotations welcome us into a microcosm of our modern world. Through the officer and the explorer, the two main characters of “In the Penal Colony”, Kafka presents to us two aspects of morality: opposition against inhumane procedures and submission of all people to the same moral code. Through this dichotomy and through a series of questions raised by the characters’ attempt to deal with opposing definitions of justice, Kafka challenges us to redefine our beliefs about morality in society today.

 

One of the most shocking structural elements of this short story is the narrator’s detached tone. Even in the most gruesome passages, the narrator refrains from making any judgments or comments. For instance, the officer’s death is described in an impassive tone: “Blood was flowing… not mingled with water, the water jets too had failed to function” (p. 165) The narrator’s detachment is mirrored by the officer’s step-by-step, emotionless description of the machine and its work: “Of course the script can’t be a simple one; it’s not supposed to kill a man straight off, but only after an interval of, on an average, twelve hours” (p. 149) In this way, Kafka crafts a text that, through its horrifying content and its detached narration, instead of giving us a definite answer, forces us to judge the underlying moral dilemmas.

 

The explorer draws the reader’s attention because of the intricate moral dilemma he struggles with throughout the whole story. It is clear that the explorer opposes the justice system in the penal colony, when he states it aloud (p. 159: “I do not approve of your procedure”) but also even before that, when he is distraught by the description of the execution process (p. 147: “the explorer drew back his head and feeling behind him with one hand sought to return to his chair”). However, many questions arise when he begins to consider the possibility of intervening to stop the procedure. First, is there a universal moral code? If there is, then it is his duty to intervene, but if it is not, is he allowed to impose his moral views on a different society? As a foreigner, he must be able to answer this question before being able to come up with a course of action. Also, should his possibility of success be a factor in deciding whether to intervene, or does he have a moral duty to stand for moral principles regardless of his chances of succeeding? This is a crucial issue he deals with when he debates with himself whether his opinion would achieve any changes (p. 160: “I was already wondering… whether my intervention would have the slightest chance of success.”)

 

To further emphasize that morality is more complex than we think, Kafka includes a series of dichotomous symbol pairs. For example, the machine is both an instrument of torture and a beautiful masterpiece of engineering (p. 151: “delicacy of vibrations”). In the same way, the execution involves 12 hours of torture, but simultaneously feeds the condemned man with desirable food (p. 154: the soldier eats from the condemned man’s rice pap). In this way, Kafka suggests that we cannot judge things as completely immoral or moral, as there usually are traces of both in every action.

 

Furthermore, the binary opposition between the old and the new Commander’s views on justice also raises questions about the effect of time on morality. Previously, the machine was widely popular: “before the ceremony the valley was packed with people” (p. 154). At the time the story takes place, however, there are “no longer any open adherents” (p. 153) Does this suggest that the understanding of what morality is has changed or that morality itself has changed? Are moral laws created by societies or are they a higher force that mankind only discovers, but cannot modify?

 

Kafka’s story does not attempt to provide us with answers to the difficult and troubling questions about law, morality, justice and virtue. Rather, it seeks to encourage us to challenge our current beliefs and to reach a deeper understanding of these values. Nonetheless, regardless of what conclusion we reach, Kafka is clear about one message: “‘BE JUST!’ is what is written here” (p. 161) It is up to us, however, to decide exactly what “just” means.

 

Questions to consider:

• Who is more virtuous? The explorer, who inwardly opposes the machine but does little to stop the execution, or the officer, who subjects himself to the same moral code that he subjects others to, to the point of giving his life for what he believes is just?
• Is the officer purged from his crime at the end? Has he even committed a crime?
• Does the story suggest a connection between justice and compassion?
• Does the new Commander play a role in the destruction of the machine? Is he acting morally?
• How does Kafka depict morality? Is there a universal moral law?