Hypothetical. Let's say you know Jews are hiding from the Nazi's in an attic of the home next door to you. An SS officer asks you if you know if any Jews are hiding nearby. Do you tell the truth?

Absolutely not. So lies can be ethical, as you pointed out. I'll have to think about that some more. That's a great example.

Thats the problem principal based ethics, when certain actions are prohibited (ethically speaking). Lying, killing, stealing…as soon as you suggest a particular action is “wrong”, its trivially easy to come up with clear exceptions to the rule.
In the nazi scenario above the person who tells the truth about the jews because its “the ethical thing to do” is a moral monster. These principal based ethics, by which I mean “so and so action is ethically wrong”, lead to logical contradictions and therefore should be rejected imo.
I would add further that principal based ethics are lazy (or hopelessly ambitious) as well. A proper ethical consideration should be case by case, the specifics of each moral situation logged and analysed. While Its understandable that that isnt always practical and ethics will inevitably lose out to practicality at times I would say that in general these sorts of dogmatic servitude to whatever principal don’t even qualify as an ethical principal. In the nazi example we all imagine the truth teller to be quite the opposite of an ethical person and Im not sure the vast majority of ethical principals people have function any different logically speaking/

“Do you think I’m prettier than her?” — Nicholas Mihaila

"What is ethical" isn't always obvious.

An objective evaluation of appearance is not being sought here. What is being requested is validation. The questioner wants to hear that she is an attractive person. Is there some reason you can not validate this person by saying "yes"?

The SS officer asking you about Jews hiding nearby is a clearcut ethical conflict between a simplistic, rigid rule (always tell the truth) and a higher requirement that one protect the innocent or that one preserve life.

Sort your ethical priorities in descending order, from what is the most important ethical consideration; to what ethical considerations are of middling importance, and which ethical considerations are least important. What can you live with, and what can you not?

The key ethical consideration should help you determine the course of action for lesser ethical considerations. So, what is your top ethical consideration?

Kant, Lectures on Ethics, has a lot to say about lying. A small sample:

"I may make a false statement when my purpose is to hide from another what is in my mind and when the latter can assume that such is my purpose, his own purpose being to make a wrong use of the truth" (p. 227, ital. added). But I cannot, Kant adds, at the same time assure him that I am telling him the truth, because while I do him in his person no injustice, "I am none the less a liar."

On white lies, same source, "The forcing from me of a statement under conditions which convince me that improper use would be made of it is the only case in which I can be justified in telling a white lie," (p. 228).

But: "There are no lies which may not be the source of evil. A liar is a coward.... But a stout-heated man will love truth and will not recognize a casus necessitatis" (p. 229).

And of interest: "If a man spreads false news, though he does no harm to anyone in particular, he offends against mankind" (p. 227).

I like the Buddhist take on ethics - it's an amalgamation of utilitarianism and deontological ethics.

Take @Tom Storm's example of the person who lies to save some Jews from a horrible fate at the hands of Nazis. As per Buddhist ethics, you are rewarded for saving those people but...also punished for the lie you told. Interesting, right?

A white lie, as the name itself suggests in my humble opinion, is both good (white) and bad (lie). Dialetheists and paraconsistent logicians should feel vindicated for claiming there are true contradictions! Amazing, don't you think?

To appreciate the contradiction, you need to consider both utilitarianism and deontological ethics, together, as one system of morality.

@Wayfarer, anything to add/delete/modify?

My wife has the uncanny habit to wanno know everything of my whereabouts. I tend to forget taking my phone with me when I go to Amsterdam to visit my mum and granny. Now she is worried that Im gonna buy oxazepam at a local pharmacist. She should be, as I left an addiction to that shit behind me. I took 10 50 mg pills a day. I quit when my provider died (and let me tell you, quiting cold turkey can better be framed as a zero Kelvin turkey!). But I can also buy it on the net. During that zeroK turkey I lost even the ability to buy a train ticket at the automat... But a few months ago, I couldnt resist. I bought some of it on the net (I had to buy bitcoins first). To my surprise an envelope did indeed arrive. She gave me the envelope. "This one's for you. What's in it?". I told her I bought some stamps I saw at an auction. That they were very cheap and I could sell them for more. Now Im not sure what happened the following 24 hours. I cant remember. But certainly she must have noticed something. I couldnt find the rest of the 3 strips of 10. I surely didnt eat them. She didnt say anything about it. Was it wrong to lie about the stamps?

My axiom is that an addict, as addict, is not a person, and it is a fundamental and dangerous mistake to treat or regard the addict as a person. If you teach your wife that lesson, you will soon enough not have a wife, nor should have one. As to leaving addiction behind, maybe you leave consumption behind - apparently not, though. But the claim of leaving the addiction behind is not credible and hasn't been for some years; research indicating that the addiction is always there.

Do yourself and your community a favor and commit yourself. At the moment you appear to be rationalizing and in denial. These being true - if they are - you're a dangerous negative, way worse than useless, until and unless you get corporate-level care.

I will kill myself. Thanks for this cheering comment!

My axiom is that an addict, as addict, is not a person, and it is a fundamental and dangerous mistake to treat or regard the addict as a person — tim wood

You must change axiom. Im proof its wrong. As far as I (and others) can tell, im a person!

Maaaan! Are you born on Pluto? — Prishon

No. what I wrote to you is simply what addicts of my acquaintance, when acting as people, jointly, severally, separately, and repeatedly affirmed. The wisdom of which I had to learn for myself.

an addict, as addict — tim wood

Explain! You are the kind of person who never weeps. For sure. I know your kind!

commit yourself. — tim wood

Wtf you know about commitment?

I did my weeping, until I saw the uselessness of it, and the truth behind what caused it. But you are demonstrating the requisite gift for deflection. And I'm not interested.

No. Its unethical. But should this stop me?

And I'm not interested. — tim wood

The why did you start?

I did my weeping, until I saw the uselessness — tim wood

Typical!

Wtf you know about commitment? — Prishon

By commitment, I mean give yourself over to the folks who will do you good. As to what I know, as with most people, you might be surprised. But instead of deflecting and running, turn around and face the storm. Facing it is always the best way.

turn around and face the storm — tim wood

Thats exactly what I do! Its causing the tears.

Then you know the truth of it. So don't bulls**t!

Then you know the truth of it. So don't bulls**t! — tim wood

Which truth?

Go ask the people you've committed yourself to. If they're professional - what I call corporate-level - they will tell you. If not, they may not, But in that case they do neither you nor themselves a favor, and ultimately do you and them harm.

Go ask the people you've committed yourself to. — tim wood

My wife is fine with me... She LOVES me... If you know the meaning of that word. The corporate you are talking about "was" indifferent. They give me a daily dose of metaphy.... eeeh, methadone but when I was deep in the hole they didnt care about me. Had they supplies me with oxazepam I wouldnt have been awake and feeling shit for four months. On the other hand, Im free of that stuff now, so maybe it has been good. But they know I could have died from it. Its bad for your memiry, say they.

My wife is fine with me... She LOVES me... — Prishon

Then you're lucky; and maybe she should and you're entitled. Who knows, maybe you earned it. An addict will f**k it up, sooner more than later. Are you that addict? (Rhetorical question, answer unnecessary.)

Are you that addict? — tim wood

Im not sure. Lets say, Im not standard. Addicted, in Dutch, is "verslaafd", meaning "enslaved". I dont feel as a slave of methadone though.

Im not sure. — Prishon

Then be prudent. I am not an addict. So it's useless for us to talk too much about addiction itself. What I know is only from the outside. But I'm up late and you're up very late. Good night.

Goodnight. In fact it was better talking to you than the "caring" corporate.

From an ethical standpoint, what is an appropriate level of honesty? — Nicholas Mihaila

Based on a thread I spun a few weeks ago it comes down to analysis of two parts. One is strict morality and the other one permissibility. It's immoral to lie and permissible to do so if no value is lost as a result. Since, lying to your wife about another woman's appearance doesn't devalue your wife or the other woman; then it is permissible to do so. If for some reason your wife needs objective input and this is some complex gaslighting it would be a hypothetical exception.

permissible to [lie] if no value is lost as a result. — Cheshire

Kant differs, what say you to that?

Kant has a legal definition of lying that is misunderstood. To lie in Kant's legal sense entails cheating some one in some way. It's been misunderstood from people only referencing the secondary arguments against it. Banno gave me a link to a great paper on it a year ago. Verda I want to say is the author.