A consequentialist, utilitarian approach to internet anonymity would argue that

• A. Anonymity should never be allowed online.
• B. Anonymity should be preserved to protect free expression.
• C. The harms from anonymous attacks outweigh the benefits of anonymity.
• D. Virtue ethics should guide privacy decisions.

Answer: (C)

A utilitarian or consequentialist view weighs the overall good and harm produced by keeping or removing anonymity online. If anonymity enables anonymous attacks—harassment, threats, doxxing, scams—and those harms ripple through individuals and communities, reducing safety, trust, and well-being, while the positive effects like privacy protection and freer expression contribute less to overall well-being, the net outcome is worse with anonymity. In that light, the better position is that the harms from anonymous attacks outweigh the benefits of anonymity, supporting policies that curb or regulate anonymity to reduce total harm. The other options lean on absolutist or non-consequentialist ideas (an absolute ban, a blanket protection for free expression, or relying on virtue ethics), which don’t reflect the utilitarian focus on balancing consequences to maximize well-being.