Moral Arguments Against
1. Evasion of Accountability: Anonymity can enable irresponsible behavior. If a preacher spreads misinformation, harmful interpretations (e.g., justifying violence or discrimination under the guise of faith), or manipulative tactics, there’s no one to hold accountable. This raises moral concerns about integrity and justice—shouldn’t those who influence others’ beliefs face scrutiny? In deontological ethics (rule-based morality), this might violate duties like truthfulness and non-deception, as anonymity could imply a lack of confidence in one’s own message.
2. Potential for Deception and Manipulation: Without identity, it’s easier to fabricate credentials or hide ulterior motives, such as financial gain (e.g., anonymous donation drives for dubious “faith-based” causes) or psychological control. This erodes trust in religious discourse overall. Morally, it could exploit vulnerable people seeking spiritual guidance, turning faith into a tool for power rather than enlightenment. Consider how anonymous online preaching might contribute to echo chambers or radicalization, where unchecked ideas spiral into extremism.
3. Undermining Authentic Relationships: Faith often thrives on personal connection and testimony. Anonymity might cheapen this by creating a one-way broadcast rather than a dialogue. From a relational ethics viewpoint, true moral preaching involves vulnerability and reciprocity; hiding one’s identity could be seen as cowardly or insincere, potentially harming the spiritual growth of both preacher and audience.
In consequentialist terms, if anonymous preaching leads to division, misinformation, or emotional harm (e.g., guilting people into conversions without follow-up support), it could be deemed immoral regardless of intent.