SDG here with two clarifications, one from me and one from Mark Shea.
In a blog post entitled "Steve Greydanus takes Exception to my Choice to Go Third Party," Mark Shea writes:
I don’t believe I’ve ever said that voting for McCain would be a mortal sin. If I somehow inadvertently gave that impression (as I have somehow managed to give people the impression I’m not voting despite my repeated statements to the contrary), then please know I think no such thing. What you are hearing here is how I am doing the moral calculus on my own voting. Since mortal sin requires not just grave matter but freedom and knowledge (which are unknowable to me in the case of other people) I make no judgement here as I make no judgement in other matters. I can’t see a way to find a proportional justification for voting for McCain and I say so. But I freely grant that others might see what I cannot.
Here is my clarification: I haven’t taken exception to Mark’s "choice to go third party," or anyone else’s. On the contrary, I have said over and over that voting third party is within the scope of legitimate prudential judgment.
My view is that both voting pragmatic (in this election for McCain) and voting quixotic (for some third-party candidate) are in principle valid ways of seeking to accomplish good. This is in contrast to voting for Obama, which I do not believe is a valid way of seeking to accomplish good in this election.
What I took exception to was what I took to be Mark’s express opinion that voting for McCain is objectively wrong. But does Mark acknowledge saying this?
Mark slices the pie at a different angle by saying that he doesn’t believe he’s said that "voting for McCain would be a mortal sin." "Mortal sin" is not the same as "objectively wrong," since, as Mark himself notes, "mortal sin requires not just grave matter but freedom and knowledge," which I take it for granted that Mark doesn’t judge.
In fact, I explicitly said so all the way back in my initial post on the subject:
Some caveats here are necessary. In leaning toward such views, Mark naturally means to express an opinion, not a definitive fact. It is an opinion about objective right and wrong, but still an opinion, and Mark would certainly acknowledge that it is an area of permissible dispute, and in principle he could be wrong. Second, I take it for granted that Mark makes no judgment about the culpability of McCain advocates, any more than either he or I judges Kmiec’s culpability for his Obama advocacy. Third, Mark clearly doesn’t put McCain advocacy on a par with Obama advocacy, either regarding plausibility or degree of evil. Still, it does seem that Mark feels or has felt that there are two unequal but objectively wrong choices — voting for either of the two major candidates — and only one morally legitimate course, not voting for either one.
So the question is not "mortal sin," but objective wrongness.
Mark goes on to say, "I can’t see a way to find a proportional justification for voting for McCain and I say so. But I freely grant that others might see what I cannot."
The first sentence seems to entail that, in fact, Mark does believe that voting for McCain is objectively wrong. The second sentence doesn’t deny this belief; rather, Mark simply acknowledges the possibility that he could be wrong in this opinion, as I already noted I assumed from the outset.
Mark may be tentative and humble about his opinion that voting for McCain is objectively wrong, but it still seems to be his opinion; and it is to that opinion — not Mark’s actual vote — that I take exception, and to which this series of posts is addressed.
P.S. This post is not an invitation to regurgitate established talking points without contributing to the discussion. (Those of you to whom I am, and am not, talking know who you are.) Thank you.
