Violence, dignity, and PTSD: A question rarely asked in times of war

War, terror, murder, and violence are once again part of everyday public debate. At the same time, one aspect that goes beyond political justifications and ideological assessments is often missing: the question of what killing a person does to the perpetrator. In his new essay "Is killing undignified? A sober question about murder, terror, and war," author Markus Schall sheds light on this often-suppressed perspective in the online magazine of M. Schall Verlag--without accusation, without moralizing, and without hasty answers.

Violence as a human act of transgression

The article starts from a sober but profound point: decisions about violence are usually made from a safe distance - in conference rooms, by political leaders or through strategic planning.

But the actual killing, according to Schall, is carried out by people who have often never met the victim and whose only connection at that moment is to have marked a target. Between decision and action lies a distance in which something essential is lost: personal responsibility for the act of killing itself.

Don't accuse - pause instead

Schall emphasizes that the aim of the essay is not to assign blame or condemn certain groups - neither soldiers, police officers nor political decision-makers. A comparison between murder, terror and war is also deliberately avoided.

Instead, the text invites us to pause and ask whether we have become too accustomed to viewing violence as legally justified, necessary, or without alternative - and in doing so, overlook the influence on those who act.

Dignity as an inner standard

At the center of the reflection is the concept of dignity--not in the legal or constitutional sense, but as an inner attitude of the actor toward himself. Schall explains that dignity is not an abstract value, but a personal relationship to one's own decisions, responsibility, and self-image.

This inner standard is put to the test in a particularly painful way when one person kills another - regardless of whether this takes place in the context of war, terror, or individual acts of violence.

Different forms of lethal violence

The essay differentiates between different forms of lethal violence: Murder:

Direct, personal violence without institutional delegation. According to Schall, the perpetrator is not morally condemned here, but the act is described as a transgression that damages the self-image and inner dignity of the perpetrator.

Terror: Terrorist violence is often embedded in ideological narratives that level personal responsibility. The perpetrator does not act as an independent subject, but as a tool of an idea - a form of self-degradation that extends far beyond the act itself.

War: Soldiers usually carry out decisions made by others. At the same time, this is precisely the moment when abstract violence becomes concrete and the concept of dignity needs to be redefined.

Link to concrete experiences: Videos about soldiers and PTSD

The article also includes two videos that combine theoretical discussion with a concrete, very real dimension of violence: the psychological consequences that lethal violence leaves behind in the perpetrator. The first video highlights the experiences of soldiers on deployment who are in the immediate context of war and whose everyday life is often marked by stress, moral strain, and traumatic experiences.

The second video is an interview with Hagen Vockerodt, who has spent more than 1,600 days on foreign missions. He also reports on PTSD, a psychological consequence that has been documented in many former soldiers, emergency personnel, and victims of lethal violence.

These moving perspectives show that violence is not only to be understood in abstract or political terms, but leaves emotional, physical, and social scars that go far beyond the actual event. They complement the sober question of dignity with a tangible, human experience and make it clear that the consequences of lethal violence often shape behavior and last a lifetime.

No ready-made answers - but an open space for thought

The article does not provide simple solutions, political programs, or moral judgments. Rather, it aims to encourage reflection: What are the consequences of killing for the perpetrator? How does violence change people internally - even when it is considered necessary or justified?

Schall deliberately writes from a neutral perspective that invites readers to keep uncomfortable questions alive rather than rushing to answer them. Availability and reference

The complete essay is freely available online in the online magazine of M. Schall Verlag and represents an unusual but important contribution to the discussion about violence, dignity, and responsibility.

Target audience and intention

The essay is aimed at people who want to go beyond traditional debates and explore the human, psychological, and ethical dimensions of violent action. Especially in times when violence is once again increasingly present, the aim is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the consequences of violence--not for or against any particular side, but as a contribution to a reflective public discourse.

Frequently asked questions

* Why does the article even ask whether killing is "undignified"?
The article asks this question because it is rarely asked in public debates. Most of the time, the focus is on justifications, strategies, or assigning blame, but rarely on the inner dimension of the act itself. The question of dignity is not directed at the victim--whose dignity is beyond question--but at the perpetrator. The question is what killing does to a person's self-image and whether something irreversible is lost in the process, regardless of legal or political justifications.

* Is the text about a moral condemnation of soldiers, police officers, or perpetrators?
No. The article deliberately refrains from moral condemnation. It makes a clear distinction between legal assessment, political responsibility, and inner impact. The aim is not to accuse individual groups, but to open up a space for reflection in which the psychological and human consequences of lethal violence are considered. Soldiers and emergency services personnel in particular are not attacked, but seen as people who have to carry out decisions made by others.

* What exactly is meant by "dignity" in this context?
The term dignity is not used here in a legal or abstract sense, but in an existential sense. It refers to a person's inner relationship with themselves: the feeling of acting in harmony with one's own self-image, one's own boundaries, and one's own conscience. Killing can--according to the thesis--damage this inner dignity because it represents a transgression that cannot be completely rationalized, even if it appears formally justified.

* Why does the article distinguish between murder, terror, and war?
The distinction is not intended to establish a hierarchy of guilt, but rather to analyze different contexts. Murder is an individual act, terror is ideologically embedded, war is institutionally organized. In all three cases, people are killed, but the responsibility, self-image, and justification differ. The article shows that the inner effect on the perpetrator can nevertheless leave comparable traces--even if the external circumstances are very different.

* Does the article relativize or justify war?
No. The text avoids both justification and blanket condemnation. It takes a sober perspective and notes that war is decided politically but carried out by humans. This separation means that the internal consequences for the perpetrators are often suppressed or tabooed. The article aims to highlight this gap without legitimizing or demonizing war.

* Why does the article not provide clear answers or solutions?
Because there are no easy answers to this question. The text is not intended as a guide, but as an invitation to reflection. It does not seek to say what is right or wrong, but to encourage people to allow certain questions to be asked again. Especially in a time of quick judgments and clear fronts, the author considers it more important to initiate thought processes than to provide definitive positions.

* Is the article politically or ideologically biased?
No. The article is deliberately non-partisan and non-ideological. It criticizes neither "the West" nor "the East," neither specific countries nor political camps. Instead, it remains on a human level and considers violence as an existential borderline experience. This perspective makes the text accessible to readers of different political convictions.

* For whom is this article particularly relevant?
The text is aimed at readers who are not satisfied with slogans or simple explanations. It is particularly relevant for people who deal with war, terror, security policy, ethics, or psychology--but also for readers who feel that something crucial is missing in public debates: the question of the inner consequences of violence. It is suitable for both reflective lay readers and specialist readers looking for a different perspective.

M. Schall Verlag
Hackenweg 97
26127 Oldenburg
Germany

https://markus-schall.com
Mr. Markus Schall
info@schall-verlag.de

M. Schall Verlag was founded in 2025 by Markus Schall - out of a desire to publish books that provide clarity, stimulate thought, and consciously escape the hectic flow of the zeitgeist. The publishing house does not see itself as a mass marketplace, but as a curated platform for content with attitude, depth, and substance. The focus is on topics such as personal development, crisis management, social dynamics, technological transformation, and critical thinking. All books are written out of genuine conviction, not market analysis, and are aimed at readers who are looking for guidance, insight, and new perspectives.

The publishing house is deliberately designed to be compact, independent, and with high standards of language, content, and design. M. Schall Verlag is based in Oldenburg (Lower Saxony) and plans to publish in German and English.

This release was published on openPR.