And the consequentialist ethical standpoint is that intent does not matter as much, but the result does. And unlike intent, short term consequences are much mor

And the consequentialist ethical standpoint is that intent does not matter as much, but the result does. And unlike intent, short term consequences are much more amenable to analysis. In case of scammer vs parent, the results are obviously different. But if say that parent lied with good intentions but caused harm, it could be as bad if not worse. The other thing that matters is whether consequences were predictable by the agent that lied. This is related to but not entirely the same as intent, however estimating that is pretty hard too. Typically done using a reference group. Note that intent implies prediction of behavior of parties that are being lied to. The opposite is not true. The argument in short is that the ethical difference between outright deception and gross negligence with same results is non-existent.