The either/or framing of the question seeks a principle or standard to apply in all cases, which proves difficult to identify. There is a long history of perspectives on both sides, with strong arguments for each.

On the side of “white lie,” there is perhaps intuitive resonance to the claim that, say, being a good friend may occasionally require stretching or bending the truth. Doing so might be justified by appeal to your friend’s well-being or as a matter of responsibility to your relationship.

But what of the costs and compromises involved in telling a lie, even a trivial one? Proponents of “painful truth” tend to offer reasons that pertain to lying’s detrimental effects on oneself or others or to a concern for maintaining proper regard for the truth. This is sometimes construed as an obligation: We owe one another the truth as a matter of respect.

Many of us fall somewhere in the middle, insisting that context makes all the difference. We may feel the need to strike a balance among considerations like concern for another’s well-being, the consequences of deceit, and the cultivation of honesty.

As attractive as this third option may seem, it is important to note that deception is often the currency of manipulation. We therefore ought to think twice about which untruths are granted the status of triviality, especially given how sneaky self-serving motivations can be. We must also remain vigilant about the potential for even the most ostensibly banal lies serving—even unwittingly—larger falsehoods. Some of the worst oppression has been propped up or fueled by the circulation of seemingly trivial or “useful” deceits—sometimes even in the form of selective or partial truths—that can lead to discrimination and reduce others to a mere instrument of some larger agenda.