Doesn't the size of the lie determine the size of the risk?
Same for truth, I suppose?
Truth is controllable by lying, but also omission, which I see as technically different.
I ma glad you brought that up, I would have not remembered the lie or truth of omission and will think about a response for later, but in the mean time would say both a lie and a truth as you said has a condition, has a consequence, has an action the omission is trying to avoid both these and avoid action as well, it is the ultimate in the action-less, and I happen to think that even if a truth is a truth doe snot mean it cannot still have a bad reaction.
So would have to conclude that the lie or truth of omission is beneficial as it simply does not hurt people where there need not be hurt.
It is the higher truths such as this such as 'do no harm' becomes the deciding factor in whether and when total admission total disclosure and truth is not needed and one is better of for being ignorant.
They will always be truths but if they do not achieve a positive than they may as well be a lie. (or is this last sentence a question?)
Can a truth ever not be a truth?
Can a truth ever be better left off un-ushered?
Is ignorance a higher form of actionable or truth?
Or is ignorance the unactionable?