 Ross’s thought seems to be the duty can be accounted for in terms of his five, foundational duties. As noted, Ross says the duty not to lie rests in part on the duty of non-maleficence. It is wrong to lie because it involves inflicting a positive injury on another person (RG 55). This might be true in part. But one might imagine someone replying with a claim similar to the one Ross makes in reply to utilitarian attempts to show the duty of fidelity to promises is not foundational, namely, that, like promise keeping, veracity is not just a device for preventing bad outcomes. Even in cases where lying is beneficial it still might be prima facie wrong, for while it does not harm or injure anyone in Ross’s sense, it does bypass another’s will in an objectionable way.