The tough part about arguing this topic is that “okay” can be a relative term, for example, it may be more “okay” to steal an apple from a grocery store than to obliterate a city, but neither are lawful or “right”. I’m sure this topic is commonly debated and opinions are formed.
Here is mine:
When a victim isn’t really a victim, is a crime really a crime? An example of this could be a surprise birthday party. One friend is being dishonest to another friend to keep the surprise and the victim of the dishonesty is not wronged. The person that was lied to might even be glad that they were lied to because they received a nice surprise. I think that something like this would be acceptable because no wrong is done to anyone.
Something similar to this might be if a starving person stole a loaf of bread from a large corporation. In a case like this the victim is barely harmed compared to the perpetrator. The benefits to the perpetrator, not dying of starvation, outweigh the loss to the victim, a rich man losing one apple.
On the other hand, if someone were to lie to mass amounts of people for personal benefit, I think that it would be unacceptable. Yet, it still happens all the time in politics. Politicians lie about how they are going to “make everything great again” just to win an election instead of being honest and putting in the effort to think of real ideas to benefit others. In cases like this, the wrong done to the majority outweighs the benefit to the perpetrator, which is not, in my opinion, acceptable.
I think that in the end, wether or not something is acceptable depends on how much the act helps one person or group of people compared to how much the act hurts another person or group of people and wether or not one outweighs the other.