Abstract
This article proposes the use of temporal logic for an analysis of instrumentality inspired by the work of G.H. von Wright. The first part of the article contains the philosophical foundations. We discuss von Wright’s general theory of agency and his account of instrumentality. Moreover, we propose several refinements to this framework via rigorous definitions of the core notions involved. In the second part, we develop a logical system called Temporal Logic of Action and Expectations (\(\textsf{TLAE}\)). The logic is inspired by a fragment of propositional dynamic logic based on indeterministic time. The system is proven to be weakly complete relative to its given semantics. We then employ \(\textsf{TLAE}\) to formalise and analyse the instrumentality relations defined in the first part of the paper. Last, we point out philosophical implications and possible extensions of our work.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Change history
10 November 2023
Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.
References
Anderson, A. R., & Moore, O. K. (1957). The formal analysis of normative concepts. American Sociological Review, 22(1), 9–17.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). Intention. Harvard University Press.
Åqvist, L. (2002). Old foundations for the logic of agency and action. Studia Logica, 72(3), 313–338.
Audi, R. (1989). Practical Reasoning. Routledge.
Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the Future. Agents and Choices in our Indeterminist World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Berkel, K. (2023). A Logical Analysis of Normative Reasoning: Agency, Action, and Argumentation, PhD dissertation, TU Wien.
van Berkel, K. & Pascucci, M. (2018). Notions of instrumentality in agency logic. In: Proceedings of PRIMA 2018, Springer Cham. pp. 403–419.
van Berkel, K., Lyon, T., & Olivieri, F. (2020). A decidable multi-agent logic for reasoning about actions, instruments, and norms. In: International Conference on Logic and Argumentation, Springer Cham. pp. 219–241.
Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boudou, J., & Lorini, E. (2018). Concurrent game structures for temporal STIT Logic. Proceedings of AAMAS, 2018, 381–389.
Broersen, J. (2003). Modal Action Logics for Reasoning about Reactive Systems, PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Broersen, J. (2011). Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic, 9(2), 137–152.
Broersen, J. (2011). Making a start with the stit logic analysis of intentional action. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(4), 499–530.
Brown, M. A. (1988). On the logic of ability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17(1), 1–26.
Clarke, D.S. (1987). Practical Inferences. Routledge Kegan & Paul.
Condoravdi, C., & Lauer, S. (2016). Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 9, 1–69.
Davidson, D. (2016). I. Agency. In R. Binkley, R. Bronaugh and A. Marras (Eds.), Agent, Action, and Reason, pp. 1–37. University of Toronto Press.
Fischer, M., & Ladner, R. (1979). Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 18(2), 194–211.
Goldman, A. (1970). Theory of Human Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hare, R. M. (1971). Practical Inferences. University of California Press.
Herzig, A., & Lorini, E. (2010). A dynamic logic of agency I: STIT, capabilities and powers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 19(1), 89–121.
Horty, J., & Belnap, N. (1995). The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(6), 583–644.
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewinski, M. (2017). Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic, 37(2), 85–113.
Lorini, E., & Schwarzentruber, F. (2017). A path in the jungle of logics for multi-agent system: on the relation between general game-playing logics and seeing-to-it-that logics. Proceedings of AAMAS, 2017, 687–695.
Meyer, J. J. Ch., Broersen, J., & Herzig, A. (2015). BDI Logics. In: H. van Ditmarsch, J.Y. Halpern, W. van der Hoek, and B. Kooi (Eds.), Handbook of Logics of Knowledge and Belief. College Publications, pp. 453–498.
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1995). BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: V. Lesser and L. Gasser (Eds.), ICMAS-95, Proceedings of the first international conference of multiagent systems. Vol. 95, pp. 312–319.
Raz, J. (1978). Practical Reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Sæbø, K. J. (2001). Necessary conditions in a natural language, In: C. Fery and W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, pp. 427–449.
Segerberg, K. (1992). Getting started: beginnings in the logic of action. Studia Logica, 51(3), 347–378.
von Stechow, A., Krasikova, S., & Penka, D. (2006). Anankastic conditionals again. In: A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Sæbø: In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Celebration of his 50th Birthday, pp. 151–171.
Stoutland, F. (2010). Von Wright. In: O’Connor, T., & Sandis, C. (Eds.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Action, pp. 589–598
Walton, D. (2007). Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157(2), 197–240.
von Wright, G. H. (1957). The Logical Problem of Induction. New York: Barnes & Noble.
von Wright, G. H. (1957). Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley. Fourth impression.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). Practical inference. The Philosophical Review, 72(2), 159–179.
von Wright, G. H. (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
von Wright, G. H. (1972). The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley. Fourth impression.
von Wright, G. H. (1972). On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica, 15(1), 39–53.
Xu, M. (2010). Combinations of Stit and actions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 19, 485–503.
Acknowledgements
Kees van Berkel was supported by the projects WWTF (MA16-028) and FWF (W1255-N23). Tim S. Lyon was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) Consolidator Grant 771779 (DeciGUT). Matteo Pascucci was supported by the Štefan Schwarz Fund (2020-2023) for the project “A fine-grained analysis of Hohfeldian concepts” and by VEGA grant n. 2/0125/22 “Responsibility and modal logic”. Section 2 and Section 5 are mainly due to Kees van Berkel, whereas Section 4 is mainly due to Tim S. Lyon and Matteo Pascucci. The other Sections are to be equally attributed to all the authors.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic in cooperation with Centre for Scientific and Technical Information of the Slovak Republic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
van Berkel, K., Lyon, T.S. & Pascucci, M. A Logical Analysis of Instrumentality Judgments: Means-End Relations in the Context of Experience and Expectations. J Philos Logic 52, 1475–1516 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-023-09714-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-023-09714-7