Should Mask Mandates be Given by the Federal Government

Biomedical Ethics: Should There be a Mask Mandate?
Introduction
In ethics there are three major ethical systems that serve as the main approaches for viewing the morality of actions. These are virtue ethics, duty ethics or deontology, and utilitarianism (Cahn & Markie, 2011). Virtue ethics is associated with the philosophies of Aristotle and Confucius and has a universal characteristic to it—meaning that virtue is defined universally and exists as an objective fact. Duty ethics posits that one’s actions are moral insofar as they correspond to the duty that the person is meant to perform. Utilitarianism posits that one’s actions are moral insofar as they promote the greatest common good of society (Holmes, 2007). In today’s world of COVID panic, the most common approach to the issue of a mask mandate is the utilitarian approach. People generally believe that the mask promotes the greatest common good. For others, the mask is a symbol of their loss of freedom and personal sovereignty; they associate it with lockdowns, with government totalitarianism, and with the ill effects of health hysteria—such as suicide, mental health problems, unemployment and starvation. There are generally these two camps: those who see masks as helping to stop the spread of coronavirus and thus save lives throughout society; and those who see the mask as a symbol of government overreach and/or as a symbol of the lie that coronavirus is a serious threat. Because there is still debate over the actual threat level of coronavirus and because people do not disagree on the matter, it is all the more difficult to consider the issue from a utilitarian perspective. Utilitarianism presupposes unanimity of opinion in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Yet, today’s society is fractured and fragmented and often torn in terms of outlook. But even if one assumes that the majority of Americans see the mask as helpful in stopping the spread of coronavirus, does this mean the federal government should mandate it for all Americans? This paper will argue from a virtue ethics perspective that, no, the government should not mandate it but instead should leave that decision up to each individual out of respect for free choice of the individual.
The Fundamental Principle of Justice
The fundamental principle of justice, which goes back to Aristotle, is the idea that “individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved” (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2020). This idea is essentially the basis of what is understood as fairness. All people should be treated equally is the way it is understood in America. However, the principle does admit that not all people are really equal, due to place or status or ability. Thus, there are various kinds of justice—such as distributive justice—which argues that the wealthy (who are obviously unequal to the poor in terms of possessing capital) should distribute their wealth to help alleviate the sufferings of the poor.
With the issue of mask wearing, it is argued by those who would support a national mask mandate that everyone should be treated equally and that everyone should do their part to stop the spread of coronavirus by wearing a mask. The problem with this is that it makes the tragic assumption that all people are equal, which as the principle of justice shows is not really the case. Some people have greater intelligence and insight than others; some people are better at physical labor than others; others are more nurturing or make better teachers; others are better speakers; and so on. By calling for the federal government to issue a mandate that takes the ability to decide what is good for oneself out of the hands of the individual, those who support a mask mandate inherently argue that the collective is what knows best and that the will of the collective is what matters over the will of the individual.
This is problematic because of what happens if the collective thinks incorrectly that what is good is actually bad and what is bad is actually good. In other words, what happens if the collective loses sight of the universal good that should motivate human behavior? What happens, in short, if the collective misunderstands actual virtue?
It is not difficult to believe that today’s people might differ in opinion in terms of what is good and what is bad. Many people have contrasting opinions. For example, some people view abortion as good and others view it as bad. If people cannot agree on what is good and bad in American culture, it is unlikely that the collective is going to have a unified opinion on mask wearing, even if the majority see it as good. Some segment of society will disagree and this will cause problems within the collective. Unless there is unanimous opinion on a matter, inflicting the collectivist viewpoint on an individual that disagrees with it is tantamount to enslavement. All can appreciate that slavery is wrong—but few think about how enslavement of the mind and will to the collective is equally bad. That is why this problem must be viewed from a virtue ethics perspective instead of from a utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian perspective is based on certain assumptions about the common good that cannot be transferred to this argument because there is no agreement about what the good is. Instead, the argument has to be approached by asking what is the virtuous thing to do here?
The Main Ethical Perspectives
Why approach the issue from the virtue ethics perspective, which of the three is by far the oldest and most ancient? The answer is that of the three it is the one best suited to answering the question of whether the federal government can ethically mandate mask wearing in accordance with the principles of justice.
Utilitarianism is the idea that the greatest common good is what people should work to achieve. What makes an action moral is if it helps to achieve a good end for the greatest number of people. This is the ethical perspective that most would use to justify a federal mandate of mask wearing. The problem is that utilitarianism requires an agreement about the common good among people. People do not agree on the matter of coronavirus or the merits of mask wearing. There are doctors like Dr. Fauci who say it helps; and there are doctors like Dr. Roger Hodkinson who say this is all politics playing medicine, that coronavirus is nothing but a bad flu for most people, and that mask wearing is completely ridiculous (Durden, 2020). There is no agreement on the matter to say the least. With no agreement on what even constitutes the greatest common good among such important stakeholders as two high-profile doctors, it is absurd to believe that a utilitarian approach is suitable to address this question.
Duty ethics requires that one know one’s duty in one’s state in life. This can be applied to the federal government. What is the federal government’s duty? Is it to make health decisions for individuals based on controversial interpretations of data? Or is it to protect individual rights? As the maxim goes, in doubt—liberty; but the fact of the matter is that few can agree even on the duty of the federal government. And if there is no agreement on this matter then it is the same as with utilitarianism: who can say what should be done.
That leaves virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is more objective than the other two because it is based on character development. Character development is essentially universal in terms of what constitutes a good character and what constitutes a bad character. In both the East with Confucius and in the West with Aristotle, character development was put forward as the way in which ethics should be applied.
Applying Virtue Ethics to the Issue of Mask Mandating
What this means with respect to a mask mandate is simply this: character development is the responsibility of the individual. The state can provide an environment in which one can develop one’s character—but it cannot do the development for the individual person. The reason for this is that the individual must exercise his own will. If the individual is not exercising his will, then no development is occurring.
When the state mandates a behavior, it removes the individual from the process of exercising his will. In other words, the individual is not making an act of the will that develops his character; he is being forced to act in a certain way that can even go against his will and his own judgment. That has a very negative effect in terms of character development and thus in the development of virtue. In virtue ethics, it is up to the individual to conform himself with the higher virtues—selflessness, honor, courage, and so on.
In a situation where a community is divided about the merits of mask-wearing or where there is no agreement about the nature of the coronavirus, it must be left up to the individual to determine what the best course of action is in accordance with his progress towards a virtuous character. Were the matter one in which it was clear to all that the coronavirus was a serious threat and that mask-wearing was not just a ploy by totalitarian dictators to usher in a Great Reset it might be a different a matter. But then it would most likely be a case of people wanting to wear a mask anyway in accordance with their desire to be good neighbors to one another.
The problem with the coronavirus is that many people do not believe the threat is real. Even though many others do believe that mask wearing is important because it has symbolic value, others feel it represents something sinister. It would be unethical for the federal government to insist that people wear masks if it goes against their better judgment—just as it would be unethical to insist that everyone get vaccinated for coronavirus. People have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and Roe v. Wade has made that clear. People object to that line of argument because they say that this is not about one’s own body—rather it is about the bodies of others because one can be healthy but one can also be a super-spreader. There is a major scientific problem with that line of thinking, as Dr. Hodkinson has shown, but those who believe in the virtue signaling mask do not admit of that problem.
Conclusion
Mask wearing ought not to be mandated by federal law because it constrains the person’s ability to act on his own will power. Every person should act in accordance with his own conscience and not be forced into action that does not align with what he believes the good to be. Education and dialogue are important—yet anyone who says anything against the official Dr. Fauci-approved narrative is censored. Dr. Hodkinson’s video, for instance, has already been deleted from YouTube. That does not promote education and dialogue. If anything it makes people all the more suspicious about what is really going on.
References
Cahn, S. & Markie, P. (2011). Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues, 5th Edition. UK: Oxford University Press.
Durden, T. (2020). Top Pathologist Claims COVID-19 Is “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On An Unsuspecting Public.” Retrieved from https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/top-pathologist-claims-covid-19-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated-unsuspecting-public
Holmes, A. (2007). Ethics: Approaching moral decisions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T. & Meyer, M. (2020). Justice and fairness. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/justice-and-fairness