[Epistemologist]

Here, I suppose we're getting into a topic of teleological ethics, where a breach of a moral standard is acceptable as long as it serves some utilitarian purpose. The end, in other words, justify the means.

On the other hand, a deontologist such as Kant, for instance, would never lie assuming his or her moral standard was that lying is bad. There may be some difference between blatantly lying and cunningly deceiving though.

There may also be difference between the former and systematic quasi-lying, which I think is the case with the man buying alcohol for the women without mentioning his true intention although both know it, as such is the practice in "dating" and such.

Regardless, if we say he's lying, then what's his justification? Is his "greater good" the sexual pleasure from the intercourse he hopes to get? Are teleological ethics acceptable? I would say yes, but there should be special consideration of the circumstances.

For instance, a common moral standard (often based on a single criterion) is that killing is bad. However, I think it's sometimes okay to kill, and a teleologist would say that it's okay as long as it serves the greater good. Executing cultural enemies such as criminals seems to serve society, for instance.

I hope I answered the question.