Factoring Disjunction Out of Deontic Modal Puzzles
نویسنده
چکیده
Ross’s puzzle (Ross, 1941) and the paradox of Free Choice Permission (Kamp, 1973), puzzles involving disjunction under deontic operators, have received wide discussion in recent work in natural language semantics. First, I contrast the opposed modal views—call them the “box-diamond” theory and EU theory—that form two poles of the contemporary debate. The opposition between them is underwritten by distinct, well-developed conceptions of what it is for an action to be good. I present an axiomatization of obligation and permissibility—of ‘ought’ and ‘may’—that is neutral between the two theories. Adding in the interpretation of ‘or’ as Boolean union—that is, as the relevant kind of propositional fusion—we get the received dialectic in the literature between the two theories on explaining Ross and FCP. Factoring out this assumption, we get a picture of how far apart the two theories are as theories of value, with no questions begged about the semantics of sentential disjunction.
منابع مشابه
Introducing Exclusion Logic as a Deontic Logic
This paper introduces Exclusion Logic a simple modal logic without negation or disjunction. We show that this logic has an efficient decision procedure. We describe how Exclusion Logic can be used as a deontic logic. We compare this deontic logic with Standard Deontic Logic and with more syntactically restricted logics.
متن کاملA Note for Discussion: Treating Disjunctive Obligation and Conjunctive Action in Event Semantics with Disquotation
Standard deontic logics are about what obtains in deontically ideal worlds. Deontic reasoning from the perspective of event semantics and the disquotation (ESD) theory, which we describe briefly, is about individual obligations, permissions, etc. in this, admittedly non-ideal world. Standard deontic logics are beset with a number of puzzling paradoxes and anomalies. Our suggestion here is that ...
متن کاملModality, scale structure, and scalar reasoning
Epistemic and deontic comparatives differ in how they interact with disjunction. I argue that this difference provides a compelling empirical argument against the semantics of Kratzer (1991), which predicts that all modal comparatives should interact with disjunction in the same way. Interestingly, an identical distinction is found in the semantics of non-modal adjectives: additive adjectives l...
متن کاملThe Possibility of Norm-Violation in Deontic Logics for Action Types An Analysis of Bentzen’s Action Type Deontic Logic and a New Semantics
In a recent paper, Bentzen proposes a semantically characterised logic called Action Type Deontic Logic, where normative concepts are applied to action expressions, rather than propositional statements. The logic offers solutions to many of the paradoxes of deontic logic. In particular, Bentzen’s semantics solves many puzzles involving the interaction of permission with conjunction and disjunct...
متن کاملDeontic Modals: Why Abandon the Default Approach
John Horty has proposed an approach to reasoning with oughtpropositions which stands in contrast to the standard modal approach to deontic logic. Horty’s approach is based on default theories as known from the framework of Default Logic. It is argued that the approach cannot be extended beyond the most simple kinds of default theories and that it fails in particular to account for conditional o...
متن کامل