Lying costs and social preferences are perhaps the two most well-documented deviations from selfish maximization behavior in the economic literature. We hypothesize that in situations where both motives - a motive not to lie and a motive to be fair - are present, but in conflict, individuals may self-servingly place more weight on the motive that helps them to increase their earnings while maintaining a positive self-image. We test this hypothesis using a laboratory experiment that allows us to document whether such motivated motive selection is present. We find evidence that subjects behave as if they care more about equality when caring about fairness implies higher earnings, while they behave as if they care more about truth-telling when telling the truth implies higher earnings.