Skip to main content

An Andersonian Deontic Logic with Contextualized Sanctions

  • Conference paper
Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7393))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present a refinement of Anderson’s reduction of deontic logic to modal logic with only alethic modalities. The refined proposal contextualizes the Andersonian sanction constant s by replacing it with a unary sanction operator S that is dependent on the concrete normative requirement that is violated. A formula S B is then for instance interpreted as “B causes a sanction” or as “B provides a reason for (the applicability of) a sanction”. Due to its modified sanction operator, the resulting logic DSL invalidates some instances of the inheritance principle. This gives rise to new interesting features. For instance, DSL consistently allows for the presence of conflicting obligations. Moreover, it provides novel insights in various central ‘paradoxes’ in deontic logic such as the Ross paradox, the paradox of the good Samaritan, and Forrester’s ‘gentle murderer’ paradox.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, A.R.: The reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, A.R.: The formal analysis of normative systems. In: Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 147–213. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Åqvist, L.: Deontic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 147–264. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carmo, J., Jones, A.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. The Journal of Philosophy 81, 193–197 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Forrester, J.W.: Conflicts of obligation. American Philosophical Quarterly 32(1), 31–44 (1995)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Goble, L.: A logic of good, should, and would. Journal of Philosophical Logic (19), 169–199 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamblin, C.L.: Imperatives. Blackwell, Oxford (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen, J.: Imperatives and Deontic Logic. On the Semantic Foundations of Deontic Logic. Dissertation, University of Leipzig (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, vol. 07122, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hare, R.M.: Some alleged differences between imperatives and indicatives. Mind (76), 309–326 (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jones, A., Pörn, I.: Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese 65, 275–290 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanger, S.: New foundations for ethical theory. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pp. 36–58. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1971); First published as a privately distributed pamphlet (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mares, E.: Andersonian deontic logic. Theoria 58, 3–20 (1992)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meyer, J.-J.: A simple solution to the “deepest” paradox in deontic logic. Logique & Analyse, 117–118, 81–90 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J., Dignum, F.P.M.: The role of deontic logic in the specification of information systems. In: Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pp. 71–115. Kluwer Academic, Boston (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Prior, A.N.: Escapism: the logical basis of ethics. In: Melden, A.I. (ed.) Essays in Moral Philosophy, pp. 135–146. University of Washington Press, Seattle (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  19. von Wright, G.H.: Is there a logic of norms? Ratio Juris 4, 265–283 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinberger, O.: Der Begriff der Nicht-Erfüllung und die Normenlogik. Ratio 14, 15–32 (1972)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Straßer, C., Beirlaen, M. (2012). An Andersonian Deontic Logic with Contextualized Sanctions. In: Ågotnes, T., Broersen, J., Elgesem, D. (eds) Deontic Logic in Computer Science. DEON 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7393. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31570-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31570-1_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31569-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31570-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics