What is the narrator's moral dilemma in part 2 of "Shooting an Elephant"?

In “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, the narrator finds himself in quite a moral dilemma indeed, as he agrees with the Burmese people and works for the British Empire. Let’s explore this in more detail.

The narrator is a police officer in Moulmein, Burma. He is British, of course, as Burma is under colonial government. He is also the target of insults, tripping, and spitting. The people hate him as a symbol of their oppression by their colonizers.

The narrator, however, secretly sides with the people. “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors,” he says, yet technically he is one of the oppressors. Herein lies the dilemma that he cannot escape. Even if he quits his job as a police officer, he is still English, and as a police officer, he has to do all the dirty work of the empire. The narrator is still young and not especially educated, and he has no idea how to get himself out of his dilemma. He has to keep his silence, hating the empire and hating the Burmese people who continually insult and torment him.

Was the narrator in "Shooting an Elephant" justified in his actions? Could there have been another solution?

The narrator was not justified in shooting the elephant in Orwell's short story and is deeply troubled by the entire ordeal. As a British police officer patrolling a region in Lower Burma, the narrator is an extension of the imperial regime and a figurehead of colonial authority. The narrator has no intention of shooting the elephant as he roams the streets looking for the beast that had terrorized the area earlier that day. As the British officer searches for the elephant, a massive crowd begins to gather around him. When the narrator discovers the elephant, it is peacefully eating grass and is no longer a threat. The narrator understands that it would be senseless to kill the tranquil beast. He also rationalizes that it would be a waste of money to shoot the elephant, considering the fact that elephants are expensive, prized work animals. However, the British officer experiences peer pressure from the crowd to shoot the beast and has an epiphany before pulling the trigger. The narrator says:

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the 'natives,' and so in every crisis he has got to do what the 'natives' expect of him.

The British officer proceeds to kill the tranquil beast in order to avoid being laughed at by the natives. The narrator's reasoning is not justified but it would be difficult for him to obey his conscience by refusing to be perceived as a resolute, callous authority figure. The narrator's difficulty to individually express himself while wearing a British uniform is exactly the message that Orwell wishes to convey. When individuals act on behalf of imperialist, oppressive regimes, they lose their sense of self and become an extension of the colonial authority. They are forced to wear a "mask" and must separate their conscience from the commands they must obey.

Was the narrator in "Shooting an Elephant" justified in his actions? Could there have been another solution?

The narrator himself admits in the end that he was not justified in shooting the elephant. He knew that he only did it to keep from looking like a fool. Others said he was justified because it had killed a man, but the narrator knows the truth. The elephant was no longer harmful - it's attack of must had passed. Before he shoots the elephant, the narrator says he knew he should just leave it alone and its owner would retrieve it when it came back. The narrator only shoots the elephant because of the force of peer pressure and his fear of being laughed at by the Burmans. This reason is not justifiable.