My experience with philosophy (including reading this site) has given me the impression that every utterance (or at least nearly every utterance) can be interpreted in such a way that gives it plausibility. This holds for ethically trivial utterances like "I don't believe that 2+2=4", which I can defend with an explanation like "well, 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth because a) there is skepticism in the spirit of (perhaps and among others) Descartes and b) no base was clarified in which this equation takes place" as well as ethically significant utterances like "I did not have sex with that woman" which I can defend with an explanation borrowing ideas I saw in some responses to the question about whether cybersex was sex, for instance, "Well, we used a condom which prevented literal contact which I believe is a necessary condition for something to count as sex". Now my questions are: a) is there some interpretation of every utterance such that it is plausible and b) if so, can I, in responding to questions, avoid "lying" by choosing my answer merely on the standard of what will further my own interests, knowing that there is some interpretation of my response (without perhaps knowing at the moment what precisely that interpretation is - that part is important!) that will make it seem plausible/true? Relatedly, IF any utterance can be defended plausibly as true or not, can I comfortably (in a moral sense) dispense with "truth" as a standard in choosing a response? Thanks