Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deontic Logic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Agreement Technologies

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 8))

Abstract

Deontic logic is the logic of obligation and permission. In the literature it has mainly been studied in terms of a list of problems and that is the way we chose to present it in this section. There are three main categories of problems. The first category is concerned with the nature of norms. The second category concerns phenomena of conflict, violation and revision. Finally, the third category studies deontic phenomena in the context of other logical structures.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    SDL stands for “Standard Deontic Logic”. This is a misnomer, because it is no longer considered a standard.

  2. 2.

    A dynamic permission is forward-looking and is like a constitutional right − it sets limits on what can be forbidden.

References

  • Ågotnes, T., M. Wooldridge, and W. van der Hoek. 2007. Normative system games. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2007), IFAMAAS (2007), Honolulu, ed. M. Huhns and O. Shehory, 876–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C. E., and D. C. Makinson. 1981. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 125–148. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C. E., and D. C. Makinson. 1982. The logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48: 14–37.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Åqvist, L. 2008. Alchourrón and Bulygin on deontic logic and the logic of norm-propositions: Axiomatization and representability results. Logique et Analyse 51(203): 225–261.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Åqvist, L., and J. Hoepelman. 1981. Some theorems about a tree system of deontic tense logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 187–221. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bartha, P. 1993. Conditional obligation, deontic paradoxes, and the logic of agency. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1–2): 1–23.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2003. Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’03). Edimburgh, 109–118. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2006a. Constitutive norms in the design of normative multiagent systems. In Computational logic in multi-agent systems, 6th international workshop, CLIMA VI. LNCS, vol. 3900, 303–319. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2006b. A logical architecture of a normative system. In Deontic logic and artificial normative systems. Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on deontic logic in computer scicence, DEON 2006, Utrecht, ed. L. Goble and J. J. C. Meyer. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2008. Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1): 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boella, G., G. Pigozzi, and L. van der Torre. 2009. Five guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In JURIX, Rotterdam, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, R., S. Kaci, and L. van der Torre. 2006. Merging rules: Preliminary version. In Proceedings of the eleventh international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’06), Lake District, UK, 2–5 June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J. 2006. Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario. In Proceedings 8th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4048, ed. L. Goble and J. J. Meyer, 53–68. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J. 2011. Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic 9(2): 127–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J., M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. 2002. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3–4): 428–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J., F. Dignum, V. Dignum, and J. J. Meyer. 2004. Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In Proceedings 7th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3065, ed. A. Lomuscio and D. Nute, 43–56. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J., M. Dastani, and L. van der Torre. 2005. Beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires as components in an agent architecture. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 20(9): 893–920.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Broersen, J., R. Mastop, J. J. C. Meyer, and P. Turrini. 2008. A deontic logic for socially optimal norms. In Proceedings 9th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’08). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5076, ed. L. v. d. Torre and R. v. d. Meyden, 218–232. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmo, J., and A. Jones. 2002. Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 8, 2nd ed, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 265–344. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C., F. Dignum, C. M. Jonker, and J. Treur. 2000. Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In 6th international workshop on intelligent agents VI, agent theories, architectures, and languages (ATAL), 364–378. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. 1963. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24(2): 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cholvy, L., and F. Cuppens. 1999. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In Norms, logics and information systems, ed. P. McNamara and H. Prakken. Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D. M., G. Pigozzi, and J. Woods. 2003. Controlled revision – an algorithmic approach for belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(1): 3–22.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goble, L. 2007. Prima facie norms, normative conflicts and dilemmas. In Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems, ed. D. Gabbay, J. Horty, R. van der Meyden, and L. van der Torre. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, E. 2004. Fusing legal knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (IEEE-IRI’2004), Las Vegas, 522–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, D. 2007. Designing invisible handcuffs: Formal investigations in institutions and organizations for multi-agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, D., J. J. C. Meyer, and F. Dignum. 2006. Classificatory aspects of counts-as: An analysis in modal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(5): 613–643.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. 2005. Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. 2008. Prioritized conditional imperatives: Problems and a new proposal. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1): 11–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, B. 1969. An analysis of some deontic logics. No \(\hat{\text{ u}}\) s 3: 373–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., E. Lorini, F. Moisan, and N. Troquard. 2011a. A dynamic logic of normative systems. In Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’11). Barcelona: IJCAI/AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., E. Lorini, and N. Troquard. 2011b. A dynamic logic of institutional actions (regular paper). In Computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA), LNC-S/LNAI, ed. J. Leite and P. Torroni. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. F. 2001. Agency and deontic logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Horty, J. 2007. Defaults with priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 367–413.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of IGPL 3: 427–443.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kooi, B., and A. Tamminga. 2008. Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37(1): 1–21.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F. 2008. Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis. ILLC Dissertation Series, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewer, B., and M. Belzer. 1983. Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese 54(2): 295–318.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lorini, E., and D. Longin. 2008. A logical account of institutions: From acceptances to norms via legislators. In Proceedings of the international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2008), ed. G. Brewka and J. Lang, 38–48. Menlo Park: AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorini, E., D. Longin, B. Gaudou, and A. Herzig. 2009. The logic of acceptance: Grounding institutions on agents’ attitudes. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6): 901–940.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2000. Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29(4): 383–408.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2001. Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30(2): 155–185.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2003. Permissions from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4): 391–416.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. J. C. 1988. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29: 109–136.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, X. 2003. Remedial interchange, contrary-to-duty obligation and commutation. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(3/4): 345–375.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Parent, X. 2010. Moral particularism and deontic logic. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on deontic logic (DEON’10), pp. 84–96, ed. G. Governatori and G. Sartor. Berlin/ Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parent, X. 2011. Moral particularism in the light of deontic logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, M. 2002. A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1): 149–166.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and M. Sergot. 1997. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligation. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 223–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stolpe, A. 1997. Relevance, derogation and permission. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 98–115. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolpe, A. 2010. A theory of permission based on the notion of derogation. Journal of Applied Logic 8(1): 97–113.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R. H. 1981. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 165–176. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Torre, L., and Y. H. Tan. 1997. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 79–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jan Broersen & John-Jules Meyer

  2. Department of Computer Science, King’s College London, London, UK

    Dov Gabbay

  3. Logic, Interaction, Language, and Computation Group, IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

    Andreas Herzig & Emiliano Lorini

  4. Individual and Collective Reasoning (ICR) group, University of Luxembourg, Walferdange, Luxembourg

    Xavier Parent & Leendert van der Torre

Authors
  1. Jan Broersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dov Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Herzig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emiliano Lorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John-Jules Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xavier Parent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Broersen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Room DI-241, University Rey Juan, Calle Tulipan s/n, Madrid/Mostoles, 28933, Spain

    Sascha Ossowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Broersen, J. et al. (2013). Deontic Logic. In: Ossowski, S. (eds) Agreement Technologies. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation