The ebook has a good example under “Lies in Extremis” of hiding a child from a murderer, and I accept his conclusion that you can tell the truth of “I won’t tell you” rather than acquiesce when the murderer says “Is he here?” And yes, someone stronger, esp. if packing a handy weapon, can do better against this one guy than lying “Nope, haven’t seen him”.
However: what I’d like is a plausible justification for ANYTHING other than saying “No Jews hiding here, sir!” in the following situation, one or more of which apparently Sam heard in his college class:
Even with Nazis at the door and Anne Frank in the attic, [professor Ronald A.] Howard always seemed to find truths worth telling and paths to even greater catastrophe that could be opened by lying.
Are there *any* valid criticisms of this response, or (even microscopically) better options than this particular lie to a squad of SS troops? (This isn’t a completely academic question: the situation continues to occur - see Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, southern Sudan…)