Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 14, Issue 1–2, pp 1–34 | Cite as

Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives

Article

Abstract

When a conflict of duties arises, a resolution is often sought by use of an ordering of priority or importance. This paper examines how such a conflict resolution works, compares mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature, and gives preference to one developed by Brewka and Nebel. I distinguish between two cases – that some conflicts may remain unresolved, and that a priority ordering can be determined that resolves all – and provide semantics and axiomatic systems for accordingly defined dyadic deontic operators.

Keywords

deontic logic logic of imperatives priorities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C. E. (1986). Conditionality and the Representation of Legal Norms. In: Martino, A. A. and Socci Natali, F. (eds) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Edited Versions of selected papers from the Second International Conference on “Logic, Informatics, Law’, Florence, Italy, September 1985, pp 173–186. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, C. E. and Bulygin, E. The Expressive Conception of Norms, in Hilpinen, R. (1981). New Studies in Deontic Logic. Reidel: Dordrecht, 95–124Google Scholar
  3. Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D. Hierarchies of Regulations and Their Logic, in Hilpinen, R. (1981). New Studies in Deontic Logic. Reidel: Dordrecht 95–124, 125–148Google Scholar
  4. Alchourrón C. E. and Makinson D. (1985). On the Logic of Theory Change: Safe Contraction. Studia Logica 44: 405–422MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Åqvist L. (1986). Some Results on Dyadic Deontic Logic and the Logic of Preference. Synthese 66: 95–110MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewka G.(1989) Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoninig, in Sridharan, N. S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCA1–89, Detroit, Michigan, USA, August 20–25, 1989, San Mateo, Calif.: Kaufmann, 1043–1048Google Scholar
  7. Brewka G. (1991). Belief Revision in a Framework for Default Reasoning. In: Fuhrmann, A. and Morreau, M. (eds) The Logic of Theory Change, Workshop, Konstanz, Germany, October 13–15, 1989, pp 206–222. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewka G. and Eiter T. (1999). Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs. Artificial Intelligence 109: 297–356MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brink D. O. (1994). Moral Conflict and Its Structure. Philosophical Review 103: 215–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fehige C. (1994). The Limit Assumption in Deontic (and Prohairetic) Logic. In: Meggle, G. and Wessels, U. (eds) Analyomen 1: Proceedings of the 1st Conference “Perspectives in Analytical Philosophy”, Saarbrücken 1991, pp 42–56. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Gärdenfors P. (1984). Epistemic Importance and Minimal Changes of Belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62: 136–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goble, L. (2005). A Logic for Deontic Dilemmas, Journal of Applied Logic: 961–983 Google Scholar
  13. Hage, J. C. (1991). Monological Reason Based Reasoning, in Breuker, J. A., De Mulder, R. V., and Hage, J. C., Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Model-based Legal Reasoning (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 1991, Lelystad, December 1991), 77–91.Google Scholar
  14. Hage J. C. (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen J. (2001). Sets, Sentences and Some Logics about Imperatives. Fundamenta Informaticae 48: 205–226MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, J. (2004) Problems and Results for Logics about Imperatives, Journal of Applied logic, 36–61Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, J. (2005) Conflicting Imperatives and Dyadic Deontic Logic, Journal of Applied Logic, 484–511Google Scholar
  18. Hansson, B. (1969). An Analysis of Some Deontic Logics. Nôus 3: 373–398, reprinted in Hilpinen, R. (1971). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel: Dordrecht, 121–147.Google Scholar
  19. Hare R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Horty J. F. (1997). Nonmonotonic Foundations for Deontic Logic. In: Nute, D. (eds) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp 17–44. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  21. Horty J. F. (2003). Reasoning with Moral Conflicts. Noûs 37: 557–605MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwin A. A. (1972). Grundprobleme der deontischen Logik. In: Wessel, H. (eds) Quantoren–Modalitäten–Paradoxien, pp 402–522. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanger, S. (1957). New Foundations for Ethical Theory: Part 1”, duplic., 42 p., reprinted in Hilpinen, R. (1971). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel: Dordrecht, 36–58.Google Scholar
  24. Kraus S., Lehmann D. and Magidor M. (1990). Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics. Artificial Intelligence 44: 167–207 MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis D. (1981). Ordering Semantics and Premise Semantics for Counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 217–234MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makinson D. (2000). Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29: 383–408MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Makinson D. (2001). Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30: 155–185MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus R. B. (1980). Moral Dilemmas and Consistency. Journal of Philosophy 77: 121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNamara P. (1995). The Confinement Problem: How to Terminate Your Mom With Her Trust. Analysis 55: 310–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nebel B. (1991). Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches,. In: Allen, J. A., Fikes, R. and Sandewall, E. (eds) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, KR ’91, Cambridge, MA, April 1991, pp 417–428. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  31. Nebel B. (1992). Syntax-Based Approaches to Belief Revision. In: Gärdenfors, P. (eds) Belief Revision, pp 52–88. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Prakken H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  33. Prakken H. and Sartor G. (1997). Argument-based Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Rescher N. (1964). Hypothetical Reasoning. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Rintanen J. (1994). Prioritized Autoepistemic Logic. In: MacNish, C., Pearce, D. and Pereira, L. M. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence, European Workshop, JELIA ’94, York, September 1994, Proceedings, pp 232–246. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Rott H. (1993). Belief Contraction in the Context of the General Theory of Rational Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 58: 1426–1450MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan M. (1992). Representing Defaults as Sentences with Reduced Priority. In: Nebel, B., Rich, C. and Swartout, W. (eds) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, KR ’92, Cambridge, MA, October 1992, pp 649–660. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  39. Sakama C. and Inoue K. (1996). Representing Priorities in Logic Programs. In: Maher, M. (eds) Joint International Conference and Syposium on Logic Programming JICSLP 1996, Bonn, September 1996, pp 82–96. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Sartor, G. (1991). Inconsistency and Legal Reasoning, in Breuker, J. A., De Mulder, R. V., and Hage, J. C., Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Model-based Legal Reasoning (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 1991, Lelystad, December 1991), 92–112Google Scholar
  41. Sartor, G. (2005) Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to the Law, vol. 5 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Springer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Searle J. (1980). Prima-facie Obligations. In: Straaten, Z. v. (eds) Philosophical Subjects: Essays presented to P. F. Strawson, pp 238–259. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Spohn W. (1975). An Analysis of Hansson’s Dyadic Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 4: 237–252MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  45. Ziemba Z. (1971). Deontic Syllogistics. Studia Logica 28: 139–159MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieUniversität LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations