[m0llusk]

This book changed my thinking about lying. One interesting hypothetical raised here is what to do or say when Nazis come to your door asking about the Jews hiding in the attic. To tell the whole truth without omission in such a situation has serious ethical implications.

[hopscotch]

Ronald A. Howard has quite an interesting take on this situation in a conversation with Harris in the appendix. They both talk about lying as self-defence:

> ... The next level is stealing: Needless to say, if I could steal a weapon from someone who was about to kill me, that would be fine. And if I couldn’t transform the situation as some more enlightened person might—into a real circumstance of teaching—then I would lie. I would use the minimum distortion necessary to get the problem to go away.

> At one end of the spectrum, you can be super-optimistic about people. But let’s face it, there are people who are up to no good in all kinds of ways. I’m not going to abet them in violating other people’s right to be left alone, and I’ll do whatever is necessary to avoid that.

[BrandoElFollito]

I didn't read the book, but anything else than lying is intellectual cowardice (if you were brave enough to hide people).

It is like those people (I do not remember which religion it is) who will let their child die rather than have blood transfusion. No matter the philosophy, they do not love their children, maybe not even like them.

Same with priests who, for their own comfort, would not go to the police to tell about a pedophile who is about to go for a child, just because this was told under the secrecy of confession. Going to the police and therefore condamning oneself to hell would be the courageous thing to do, not to be "intelectually pure"