Is lying ever morally justifiable. That is the question. Are “white lies” okay or are they as egregious as any other falsehoods. What about omissions. While not an overt “lie” they are an instance in which the truth is evaded. After all it is just another form of lying, in facts are omitted (Ethics Lecture Notes W5 A1 2015). Lying can be further distinguished by definition: with lies of commission being those direct statements that are outright lies, and lies of omission, being the not stating of certain information that is vital to a decision, relationship, or other important human activity (Thiroux and Krasemann 2008). Telling someone you are not gambling compulsively any more is a lie of commission, while letting them believe you are not gambling when you actually still are is a lie of omission. (Thiroux and Krasemann 2008).Looking at the legal perspective for example, common law fraud requires a perpetrator to have a particular state of mind with respect to the fact being misrepresented. The statement must be made “knowingly,” or in other words, the speaker knows he is lying (Snell, n.p., 1991). One way of getting around fraud, therefore, might be for the speaker to avoid contact with information that would lead to a “knowing” state of mind (Shell, n.p., 1991). This is precisely the kind of omission that the egoist would be completely comfortable with. The egoist simply queries “what effect does this have on me” and forms his or her opinion therefrom (Ethics Lecture Notes W1 A1 2015). The distinction between white lies and other lies is essentially not of import to the egoist. This ethical construct is derived from one’s self interest in the outcome. Deciding to lie or omit the truth is generally predicated upon how the egoist will feel or be affected by the action or lack thereof.