In philosophy of ethics, this is still something people think about.
In utilitarian style ethics, the ends (mostly) justify the means, so if in lying you are overall increasing utility/happiness for more people than if you told the truth, then it would be considered an ethical action.
By contrast, Kant's Categorical Imperative states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". By that logic, lying is viewed as an unethical action, because if everyone lied then no one would trust each other, resulting in an unworkable universe.
There's a lot more to both sides and many attempts to create more nuanced systems, but ethics is and will likely continue to be an important field of study with not a lot of hard answers.
...if everyone lied then no one would trust each other, resulting in an unworkable universe.
The universe worked just fine before humans invented proscriptions against lying. Biological organisms lie to each other all the time. Predators appear harmless; prey appear harmful, etc.
Actually most humans would be well-served by both lying more and being more perceptive of the lies that are told them.
In utilitarian style ethics, the ends (mostly) justify the means, so if in lying you are overall increasing utility/happiness for more people than if you told the truth, then it would be considered an ethical action.
By contrast, Kant's Categorical Imperative states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". By that logic, lying is viewed as an unethical action, because if everyone lied then no one would trust each other, resulting in an unworkable universe.
There's a lot more to both sides and many attempts to create more nuanced systems, but ethics is and will likely continue to be an important field of study with not a lot of hard answers.