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...…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…