IDH   23901
INSTITUTO DE HUMANIDADES
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
artículos
Título:
Review of Loyalty to Loyalty. Josiah Royce and the Genuine Moral Life
Autor/es:
VIALE, CLAUDIO MARCELO
Revista:
Transactions of the Charles Peirce Society
Editorial:
Indiana University Press
Referencias:
Lugar: Indianapolis; Año: 2012
ISSN:
0009-1774
Resumen:
Es una review de un libro de Matthew Foust sobre Royce y que fue escrita por invitación. There are several issues that are fundamental in order to analyze the importance of this book, namely an accurate reconstruction of Royce´s moral philosophy; the integration of Royces morals with other philosophical traditions; and the relevance of Royces moral psychology to moral philosophy, among others. In my view, however, there are two that are essential: first, the idea that loyalty to loyalty is a genuine way to make moral philosophy universalizable, entailing that this expression is not a vacuous one; second, the importance of the redemptive character of loyalty. Foust adheres to two different Royces thesis: loyalty to loyalty as a moral criterion, on the one hand, and the idea of the healing/creative task of the community, which implies that reconciliation is always possible. I think that the latter is mistaken. In this point, and taking the name of Auschwitz in a Bernsteinean way, I think that Royces moral philosophy can be seen as trapped within two contradictory tendencies: a clear pre-Auschwitz vein, on the one hand, and relevant aspects of his moral philosophy, on the other. Regarding the first, despite his rejection of what he calls external theodicy, Royce is still looking for a reconciliation that Arendt (and Bernstein) accurately rejects. Thus, within this vein of Royces thought, theodicy poses a threat. Meanwhile, a second tendency refers to the significant aspects of Royces philosophy, particularly considering his conception of evil: first, his emphasis on the actuality of evil; second, his statement that evil is not totally intelligible; and third, his conception of the irrevocability of deeds and especially of evils. Summing up, I think this book offers a precise reconstruction of Royces moral conception and therefore it is a good contribution to the growing literature on the American philosopher. My main criticism is that the book remains too attached to Royces view and, consequently, it fails to disclose some shortcomings that can be found in his philosophy.