Argument Schemes for Normative Practical Reasoning
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper describes a framework for practical reasoning in the presence of norms. We describe a formal normative model constructed using Action-based Alternating Transition Systems. This model is able to represent goals; obligations and prohibitions and their violation; and permissions, which are used to derogate the former. Inspired by Atkinson’s scheme for practical reasoning, we utilise argument schemes and critical questions to both show, and reason about how goals and obligations lead to preferences over the possible executions of the system. The model then allows us to determine if sufficient information has been provided in order to perform practical reasoning, identify the best courses of action, and explain why specific sequences of actions should be executed by agents within the system.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation for Normative Reasoning
An agent’s behaviour is governed by multiple factors, including its beliefs/desires/intentions, its reasoning processes and societal influences acting upon it, such as norms. In this paper we propose an extensible argumentation inspired reasoning procedure, and show how it may be used to perform normative reasoning. . The language used by our procedure is built around defeasible, nonmonotonic r...
متن کاملThe Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called 'sunk costs' in economics and 'argument from waste' in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly emp...
متن کاملNormative Practical Reasoning
1. Instrumental reasoning. Aristotle identified practical reasoning as reasoning that concludes in an act, and he was thinking of a non-mental act such as tasting food. But reasoning is a mental process, which takes place in the reasoner's mind. Its conclusion must be a mental state or a mental event; it cannot be a non-mental act. I therefore identify practical reasoning as reasoning that conc...
متن کاملArgumentation Schemes: From Informal Logic to Computational Models
Walton’s argumentation schemes with associated characteristic critical questions have been the inspiration for a number of approaches to computational modelling of argumentation. Walton’s schemes were originally intended for use in the analysis of natural language argument: once the scheme had been identified the critical questions were able to identify ways in which the presumptive conclusion ...
متن کاملThe Nature and Status of Critical Questions in Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation schemes are common types of defeasible argument evaluated with critical questions. This position paper identifies and explores some unsolved problems pertaining to critical questions, such as their argumentative effects, their connection to burden of proof, their connection to the scheme itself, and how they should be represented in argument diagrams. Discussion will use the schem...
متن کامل