Obligations, permissions and transgressions: An alternative approach to deontic reasoning
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper proposes a logic of transgressions for obligations and permissions. A key objective of this logic is to allow deontic conflicts (Lemmon 1962) but without appealing to defeasible or paraconsistent reasoning, or multiple levels of obligation. This logic of transgressions can be viewed as conceptually related to those approaches that formulate obligations in terms of “escaping” from a sanction (Prior 1958; Nowell-Smith & Lemmon 1960), and its modal variants (Anderson 1958; Kanger 1971), but where the notion of a transgression is more fine-grained than a single “sanction”.
منابع مشابه
Detecting Deontic Conflicts in Dynamic Settings
Regulations, through the use of obligations and permissions, are widely used in modern society to define acceptable behaviours. Thus it is indeed important that these regulations do not conflict with each other and contain contradicting obligations. In the present paper we focus on identifying conflicts between obligations in dynamic settings. We first show the need of an alternative semantics ...
متن کاملDynamic Normative Reasoning Under Uncertainty: How to Distinguish Between Obligations Under Uncertainty and Prima Facie Obligations
The deontic update semantics is a dynamic semantics for prescriptive obligations based on Veltman's update semantics, in which the dynamic evaluation of connicts of hierarchic obligations naturally leads to defeasibility. In this paper we use this dynamic semantics to study the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic. For example, consider a defeasible obligationòught to be done' togethe...
متن کاملThe Temporal Analysis of Chisholm's Paradox
Deontic logic, the logic of obligations and permissions, is plagued by several paradoxes that have to be understood before deontic logic can be used as a knowledge representation language. In this paper we extend the temporal analysis of Chishohn’s paradox using a deontic logic that combines temporal and preferential notions. °
متن کاملPermissions and Undercutters
Input/output logics have been proposed to formalize rule based inference. They are mainly inspired by deontic logic, or the logic of obligations, although it has also been shown that they generalize for example Reiter’s normal default logic. A recent extension of the input/output logics formalizes various notions of permission. We are interested in the question whether input/output logics can b...
متن کاملPermissions and Undercutters in Argumentation
Input/output logics have been proposed to formalize rule based inference. They are mainly inspired by deontic logic, or the logic of obligations, although it has also been shown that they generalize for example Reiter’s normal default logic. A recent extension of the input/output logics formalizes various notions of permission. We are interested in the question whether input/output logics can b...
متن کامل