Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 421–439 | Cite as

A Two-Level Perspective on Preference

Article

Abstract

This paper proposes a two-level modeling perspective which combines intrinsic ‘betterness’ and reason-based extrinsic preference, and develops its static and dynamic logic in tandem. Our technical results extend, integrate, and re-interpret earlier theorems on preference representation and update in the literature on preference change.

Keywords

Preference Betterness Modal logic Dynamic logic Priority graph Preference change Two-level models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andréka, H., Ryan, M., & Schobbens, P-Y. (2002). Operators and laws for combining preferential relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 12–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2006). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Proceedings of LOFT’06, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C. (1994). Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68, 87–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Jongh, D., & Liu, F. (2009). Preference, priorities and belief. In T. Grüne-Yanoff, & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (pp. 85–108). Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, P. (2008). Modal logics for belief and preference change. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grossi, D., & Velazquez-Quesada, F. (2009). Twelve angry men: A study on the fine-grain of announcements. In J. Horty, X. He, & E. Pacuit (Eds.), LORI proceedings (pp. 147–170). Springer.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hansson, S. O. (Eds.) (2009). Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Theory and decision library. Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpern, J. Y. (1997). Defining relative likelihood in partially-ordered preferential structure. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 7, 1–24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansson, B. (1969). An analysis of some deontic logics. Nous, 3, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson, S. O. (1995). Changes in preference. Theory and Decision, 38, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansson, S. O. (2001). Preference logic. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 4, chap. 4, pp. 319–393). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Houser, D., Kurzban, R. (2002). Revealed preference, belief, and game theory. Economics and Philosophy, 16, 99–115.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lang, J., van der Torre, L., Weydert, E. (2003). Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires. In Proceedings of IJCAI’03 (pp. 685–690).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, F. (2010). Reasoning about preference dynamics. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Benthem, J., Girard, P., Roy, O. (2009). Everything else being equal: A modal logic approach for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(1), 83–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Benthem, J., Grossi, D., & Liu, F. (2010). Deontics = betterness + priority. In DEON’2010 proceedings (pp. 50–65).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Wright, G. H. (1963). The logic of preference. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations