The Contested Morality of Mandating Masks

By: Roscoe Scarborough
August 18, 2021

Many Georgians have strong opinions about mask mandates. Savannah and Atlanta are mandating masks again. Gwinnett and other metro Atlanta schools are requiring students and staff to mask, while Glynn County is not. Governor Kemp maintains a rigid stand against statewide COVID restrictions. Pro-maskers and anti-maskers both contend that they hold the moral high ground. These attitudes toward face-coverings amid the COVID-19 pandemic reflect divergent moral worldviews on the left and on the right.

Progressives tend to hold a collectivistic morality. Many on the modern left pursue social justice and strive to achieve equitable outcomes as an ultimate goal.

Progressives declare that it is morally imperative to wear a mask to safeguard our collective well-being. Wearing face-coverings during a pandemic reflects concern for protecting high-risk populations: the elderly, the immunocompromised, essential workers, and the unvaccinated. Progressives’ pursuit of equity extends to communities of color, indigenous groups, and the poor. These populations tend to be underinsured, have insufficient access to healthcare, and experience high rates of preexisting health conditions. Progressives contend that the healthy, asymptomatic, and vaccinated should bear the minor burden of wearing a mask if it can have even a marginal impact on health outcomes. This emphasis on requiring face-coverings reflects a collectivistic morality and pursuit of equity that dominates the public policy of progressives.

Conservatives tend to hold an individualistic morality. Justice is equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law. Those on the right valorize individualism as an American virtue. This individualistic moral worldview encourages personal responsibility and celebrates rights and freedoms.

Many conservatives assert that wearing a mask should be a personal choice. Requiring anyone to wear a face-covering is a new instance of governmental overreach that infringes on civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Much like stay-at-home orders and other restrictions, compulsory face-coverings represent an expansion of governmental control over the lives of citizens. This erosion of personal freedom threatens to persist beyond the pandemic. Perceived through an individualistic moral lens, it should be an individual’s decision to wear or not wear a mask.

Depending on one’s worldview, mandated masking is either a moral obligation to protect others or an instance of governmental overreach that threatens liberty. Folks in each camp view the world from their own moral vantage point, unable or unwilling to appreciate an alternative moral perspective on face-coverings. Collectivistic and individualistic moralities produce different policies on masking, vaccine “passports,” placing restrictions on indoor dining, and numerous other policy issues.

Not all of those on the left share these progressive attitudes, while not all those on the right embrace these individualistic, libertarian ideals. Morality is always contested among and within groups. Those with power will impose their morality on others through policies that have real-world consequences.

Most of us live in moral echo chambers. We consume media and journalism that reinforces our ideological worldviews. We cultivate a social network of peers with a common morality. In our contemporary moment of hyperpartisan politics, these moral differences are exacerbated and politicized. Unfortunately, understanding the moral worldview of “the other” has fallen out of favor. These divergent moralities reinforce real-world moral and social boundaries between progressives and conservatives.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at College of Coastal Georgia and an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center. He can be reached by email at: rscarborough@ccga.edu.

  • Reg Murphy
  • Reg Murphy Center

Reg Murphy Center