Truthmakers and Normative Conflicts

  • Albert AnglbergerEmail author
  • Johannes Korbmacher


By building on work by Kit Fine, we develop a sound and complete truthmaker semantics for Lou Goble’s conflict tolerant deontic logic \(\mathbf {BDL}\).


Truthmaker semantics Conflict tolerant deontic logics Normative conflicts Deontic disjunctive syllogism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



For very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper we would like to thank O. Foisch, Hannes Leitgeb, Frederik Van De Putte and the audiences at Trends in Logic (Lublin, 2017), at Hyperintensional Logics and Truthmaker Semantics (Ghent, 2017) and at the third PIOTR workshop at the University of Bayreuth. This research was partly financed by the DFG as part of the PIOTR-Project at the University of Bayreuth.


  1. 1.
    Angell, R. B., Three systems of first degree entailment, Journal of Symbolic Logic 47:147, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angell, R. B., Deducibility, entailment and analytic containment, in R. Sylvan, and J. Norman, (eds.), Directions in Relevant Logic, Kluwer, 1989, pp. 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anglberger, A., J. Korbmacher, and F. Faroldi, An exact truthmaker semantics for permission and obligation, in O. Roy, A. Tamminga, and M. Willer, (eds.), Deontic Logic and Normative Systems: DEON 2016, College Publications, 2016, pp. 16–32.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity, Second Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Correia, F., Semantics for analytic containment, Studia Logica 77:87–104, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferguson, T., Faulty Belnap computers and subsystems of FDE, Journal Logic and Computation 26(5):1617–1636, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, K., Permission and possible worlds, Dialectica 68(3):317–336, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fine, K., Angellic content, Journal of Philosophical Logic 42(2):199–226, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fine, K., Truthmaker semantics, in B. Hale, C. Wright, and A. Miller, (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 2017, pp. 556–577.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Fraassen, B., Facts and tautological entailments, The Journal of Philosophy 66:477–487, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goble, L., Prima facie norms, normative conflicts, and dilemmas, in D. Gabbay, J. Horty, X. Parent, R. van der Meyden, and L. van der Torre, (eds.), Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, College Publications, London 2013, pp. 241–351.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goble, L., Deontic logic (adapted) for normative conflicts, Logic Journal of the IGPL 22(2):206–235, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansson, S., The varieties of permission, in D. Gabbay, J. Horty, X. Parent, R. van der Meyden, and L. van der Torre, (eds.), Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, College Publications, London, 2013, pp. 195–240.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sartre, J.-P., Existentialism is a humanism, Trans, Philip Mairet, in W. Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Meridian, New York, 1957/1946, pp. 287–311.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Straßer, C., Adaptive Logics for Defeasible Reasoning, Springer, Berlin, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Straßer, C., and M. Beirlaen, An Andersonian deontic logic with contextualized sanctions, in T. Ågotnes, J. Broersen, and D. Elgesem, (eds.). Deontic Logic in Computer Science. 11th International Conference, DEON 2012, Bergen, Norway, July 16–18, 2012. Proceedings, Springer, 2012, pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yablo, S., Aboutness, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations