CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

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 Royce?s morals with other philosophical traditions; and the relevance of Royce?s 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 Royce?s 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 Royce?s 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 Royce?s thought, theodicy poses a threat. Meanwhile, a second tendency refers to the significant aspects of Royce?s 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 Royce?s 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 Royce?s view and, consequently, it fails to disclose some shortcomings that can be found in his philosophy.