Although deceptive psychology experiments receive less attention than some forms of medical research, they pose similar moral challenges. These challenges mainly concern the use of human subjects and intentional deception. Psychologists provide an argument to justify this deception. But what is an essentially utilitarian argument too often includes faulty comparisons and dubious accounts of risks and benefits. Commentators in other areas of human-subject research might examine this argument and the assumptions behind it. Bioethics commentators seem especially well-positioned for this task.