Enforcing Virtue: the immorality of a government mask mandate

The question of whether the government may issue a mask mandate is fundamentally a question about the sanctity of the individual

The current pandemic has revealed much about the differing views of freedom that exist in America. Though the vast majority agree that wearing a mask is the correct way to combat coronavirus, opinions on how it should be enforced differ. They range from the libertarian approach of complete individual discretion, to the utilitarian approach of a nation-wide mask mandate.

At its core, this conflict represents two different definitions of freedom. The one, prioritizing individual choice; and the other, the greatest good for the greatest number. This divide runs deeper than party polarization. In fact, it represents two distinct worldviews. The question of whether the government, at the state or national level, may issue a mask mandate is fundamentally a question about the sanctity of the individual.

The libertarian conception of freedom is based on the assumption that every person is in some way related to the divine. From this assumption naturally flows the absolute recognition of each individual’s sovereignty in as far as he or she does not infringe upon the rights of another. This view of freedom recognizes the individual as being of greater value than the state, meaning that there exists no collective want that transcends the rights of the individual, no calculation of utility that trumps the duty of each to follow the dictates of his own conscience.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, “There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.”

This understanding of individual worth has far-reaching implications concerning the role government can and cannot play in our lives. If one believes that the human conscience has some connection with the transcendent, then it logically follows that judgements of right and wrong, questions of virtue, be left for the individual to decide.

Following this line of thinking, philosopher Immanuel Kant thought it is necessary to distinguish between virtue and justice and concede government the power to enforce only the latter. This would mean that government is only justified in enforcing a law, or punishing its transgression, if the act in question directly infringes upon another’s natural rights of life, liberty, property, etc.

Limiting the scope of government coercion to enforcing justice is essential to maintaining our liberty. When the government is allowed to enforce virtue alongside justice, then those in power may impose whatever laws and ideals they deem moral on the rest of the population, regardless of the restraints on freedom that result.

One can see how this would quickly lead to the dissolution of individual rights. Even if it begins with something seemingly small and well-intentioned, such as implementing a nation-wide mask mandate, the government’s enforcement of laws relating to acts of virtue goes against its primary function to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as the preamble of the constitution states.

The utilitarian version of freedom, so often used as a rallying cry by politicians, places the short-term collective good above the sacred principle of individual choice. Utilitarianism divorces the concept of freedom from the transcendent, which implies that freedom is nothing but a privilege permitted the individual in as far as it serves the common good. When freedom is construed this way, the rights of the individual become subject to the decisions of the enlightened elite, or trusted experts, or enraged majority. And whatever they consider to be the virtuous or right thing can be enforced by the government.

When belief in the transcendent value of human beings is abandoned, truth becomes whatever the majority says it is. Such a society, one that bases its policies and institutions on purely secular assumptions, is guided by nothing but unstable scientific theories and volatile popular belief. History has shown us that thinking like this, in utilitarian terms, is much more fatal than a virus or world-wide pandemic.

If we are to live in a society where individual rights are protected and prioritized over state agendas, we must reject this utilitarian conception of freedom and refuse government the prerogative of enforcing the wearing of masks.

We must do as John Milton prescribed, and carefully “discern in what the law is to bid restraint and punishment, and in what things persuasion only is to work”. Wearing a mask, an act of virtue, should not be forced upon any individual, however, it can, and should, be encouraged through persuasion.

Many private companies and countless individuals have already implemented common sense policies to combat COVID-19 and have persuaded others to do the same. All this has been done without the need for external coercion or government enforcement, proving, along with numerous historical parallels, that a virtuous people does not need a virtue-enforcing government to show them how best to live their lives.

Log in to leave a comment below! Please continue this conversation by sharing your opinion in the comments section and sharing this blog post with your friends.