Jef Raskin’s original essay appeared on the earlier raskincenter.org site. This page provides editorial context and commentary on that essay, not the essay itself.

In this essay, Raskin addressed the ethical arguments surrounding the use of torture, bringing the same analytical clarity to moral philosophy that he applied to interface design and physics.

The Argument

Raskin examined the various justifications offered for the use of torture — national security, the so-called “ticking bomb” scenario, and claims of necessity — and subjected each to rigorous logical analysis. He considered both consequentialist and deontological perspectives, assessing whether any coherent ethical framework could justify the practice.

Raskin’s Position

Raskin argued against torture on both moral and practical grounds. Morally, he held that torture violates fundamental human dignity in a way that cannot be offset by any claimed benefit. Practically, he noted the well-documented unreliability of information obtained through coercion: people under torture will say whatever they believe will end their suffering, making the intelligence gained untrustworthy.

Intellectual Courage

Writing on such a charged topic demonstrated Raskin’s willingness to engage with difficult questions beyond his professional domain. He believed that intellectual honesty required addressing uncomfortable subjects directly rather than avoiding them, and that the tools of clear thinking — logic, evidence, and principled reasoning — applied to ethical questions just as they did to technical ones.

Context

This essay is characteristic of Raskin’s broader intellectual life, in which technology, philosophy, art, and ethics were not separate compartments but interconnected domains of inquiry, all demanding the same standard of rigorous thought.

This page is part of the Jef Raskin Reference, providing editorial commentary on the published works of the creator of the Macintosh project.