This chapter explores the prospects for justifying the view that there is a moral difference between (i) asserting what one believes to be false—lying—and (ii) implicating, without asserting, what one believes to be false. I begin by clarifying the nature of the two types of acts, lying and untruthfully implicating, and the question to be asked about the difference between them. I then divide previous attempts to answer this question into three broad categories, all within a deontological ethical framework. I survey these attempts and find them lacking. I present an alternative, consequentialist approach to the question. I conclude with some reflections about how we might explain the intuition that there is a moral difference between asserting and untruthfully implicating if, in the end, the view that there is such a difference cannot be justified.