Synthese

, Volume 175, Issue 1, pp 69–88 | Cite as

Von Wright’s “The Logic of Preference” revisited

Article

Abstract

Preference is a key area where analytic philosophy meets philosophical logic. I start with two related issues: reasons for preference, and changes in preference, first mentioned in von Wright’s book The Logic of Preference but not thoroughly explored there. I show how these two issues can be handled together in one dynamic logical framework, working with structured two-level models, and I investigate the resulting dynamics of reason-based preference in some detail. Next, I study the foundational issue of entanglement between preference and beliefs, and relate the resulting richer logics to belief revision theory and decision theory.

Keywords

Preference Reasons Dynamics Beliefs Priorities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andréka H., Ryan M., Schobbens P-Y. (2002) Operators and laws for combining preferential relations. Journal of Logic and Computation 12: 12–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltag A., Moss L.S., Solecki S. (1998) The logic of common knowledge, public announcements, and private suspicions. In: Gilboa I. (eds) Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK 98). San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 43–56Google Scholar
  4. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2006). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT 06), Liverpool.Google Scholar
  5. Baltag A., & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), Texts in logic and games. (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. Benferhat, S., Cayol, C., Dubois, D., Lang, J., & Prade, H. (1993). Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of IJCAI’93 (pp. 640–645).Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn P., de Rijke M., Venema Y. (2001) Modal logic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Boutilier C. (1994) Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence 68: 87–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., & Marquis, P. (2004). Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In Proceedings of KR 2004. Barcelona, Spain: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Jongh D., & Liu, F. (2008). Preference, priorities and belief. In T. Grune-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. (to appear).Google Scholar
  11. Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Bisimulation on Planet Kripke. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Girard, P. (2008). Modal logics for belief and preference change. PhD thesis, Stanford University (to appear).Google Scholar
  13. Halldén S. (1957) On the logic of “Better”. Lund, Library of TheoriaGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpern J.Y. (1997) Defining relative likelihood in partially-ordered preferential structure. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7: 1–24Google Scholar
  15. Hansson S.O. (1995) Changes in preference. Theory and Decision 38: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson S.O. (2001) Preference logic. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 4, Chap. 4). Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 319–393Google Scholar
  17. Hansson, S. O., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2006). Preferences. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford. http://plato.stanford.edu//entries/preferences/.
  18. Jeffrey R.C. (1965) The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2003). Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires. In Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’03), Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis D. (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, F. (2004) Dynamic variations: Update and revision for diverse agents. Master’s thesis, MoL-2004-05, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. Liu. F. (2008a). Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Liu, F. (2008b). Logics for interaction between preference and belief. Manuscript, Department of Philosophy, Tsinghua University, Beijing.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, F. (2008c). A two-level perspective on preference. Manuscript, Department of Philosophy, Tsinghua University, Beijing.Google Scholar
  25. Plaza, J. A. (1989). Logics of public communication. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, Charlotte, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  26. Savage L.J. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Shoham Y., Leyton-Brown K. (2008) Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game theoretic and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. van Benthem J. (1996) Exploring logical dynamics. CSLI Publication, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  29. van Benthem J. (2000) Information transfer across Chu spaces. Logic Journal of the IGPL 8: 719–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 129–156. Technical Report, PP-2006-11, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. van Benthem, J. (2008). For better or for worse: Dynamic logic of preference. In T. Grune-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, Theory and Decision Library. (to appear).Google Scholar
  32. van Benthem, J. & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 157–182. Technical Report, PP-2005-29, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. van Benthem, J., Roy, O., & Girard, P. (2007). Everything else being equal: A modal logic approach to ceteris paribus preferences. Technical Report, PP-2007-09, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Frolova, A. (1993). Changing preferences. Technical Report, CS-93-10. Amsterdam: Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  35. van Benthem, J., van Otterloo, S., & Roy, O. (2006). Preference logic, conditionals and solution concepts in games. In H. Lagerlund, S. Lindström, & R. Sliwinski (Eds.), Modality matters: Twenty-five essays in honour of Krister Segerberg (pp. 61–77). Uppsala Philosophical Studies, 53.Google Scholar
  36. van Ditmarsch H., van der Hoek W., Kooi B. (2007) Dynamic epistemic logic. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Wright G.H. (1963) The logic of preference. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamada, T. (2006). Acts of commands and changing obligations. In K. Inoue, K. Satoh, & F. Toni (Eds.),Proceedings of the 7th workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA VII). Revised version appeared in LNAI 4371 (pp. 1–19, 2007). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Yamada, T. (2007). Logical dynamics of some speech acts that affect obligations and preferences. In J. van Benthem, S. Ju, & F. Veltman (Eds.), A meeting of the minds—Proceedings of the workshop on logic, rationality and interaction (pp. 275–289). London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of Humanities and Social ScienceTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations