Kearney's treatment is readable, illuminating, and his critiques of deconstructive ethics are apt, particularly in his view that a radical alterity precludes the ability to make finer judgments of right and wrong. Yet problems arise. First, his critique depends on a belief in a higher power of some form, so in a sense he does not deal with the issue of ethics in a world where not everyone shares his belief and the eternal problem of how a common ethical ground can be established in a world full of differences without recourse to a higher adjudicating body, i.e., "God." Second, he relies heavily on the notions of "good" and "evil" without really defining what he means by them. Third, he is obviously uncomfortable with anything but the notion of a benevolent godhead and is very resistant to the notion of a god as both terrible and wonderful at once; this begs more questions than it answers, and his critiques of people like Eliade or Campbell seem to ring more hollow than his problems with the deconstructionists. Of course, this puts him up against many of the world's other relgions: what could he do with Kali, or Zeus or Coyote? Clearly these sorts of gods cannot be entered into his system.
So, if you share his views of a benevolent Judeo-Christian God, you may end up agreeing with him. Otherwise, a lot of salt is in order.