Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextual Deontic Logic: Normative Agents, Violations and Independence

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we discuss when and how to use deontic logic in multi-agent systems. Our central question is how to proceed once a norm has been violated or defeated, a key issue of deontic logic applications in multi-agent systems. To bridge the logical analysis of norms in philosophy with applications in agent theory, we propose a practical approach based on violation contexts and independence statements. In particular, we introduce a combination of two traditional deontic logics, which we extend with so-called deontic and factual independence assumptions. We show how different notions of violability and defeasibility can be encoded in the logic by defining different ways in which independence assumptions are derived from the explicit manner of presentation. We also show how our approach can be used to give a new analysis of several notorious paradoxes of deontic logic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C.E. Alchourrón, Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals, in: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, eds. J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa (Wiley, New York, 1993) pp. 43–84.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Åqvist, Systematic frame constants in defeasible deontic logic, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D. Nute (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997) pp. 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  3. K.J. Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Asher and D. Bonevac, Prima facie obligation, Studia Logica 57 (1996) 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (Basic books, 1984).

  6. F. Bacchus and A.J. Grove, Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of KR'96 (1996) pp. 542–552.

  7. M. Belzer, A logic of deliberation, in: Proceedings of the AAAI'86 (1986) pp. 38–43.

  8. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois and H. Prade, Practical handling of exception-tainted rules and independence information in possibilistic logic, Applied Intelligence 9 (1998) 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Boutilier, Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach, Artificial Intelligence 68 (1994) 87–154.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. Boutilier, Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the KR'94 (1994) pp. 75–86.

  11. M.E. Bratman, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Broersen, M. Dastani, Z. Huang, J. Hulstijn and L. van der Torre, The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AA2001) (2001) pp. 9–16.

  13. J. Carmo and A.J.I. Jones, A new approach to contrary-to-duty obligations, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D. Nute (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997) pp. 317–344.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. Castelfranchi, Modelling social action for AI agents, Artificial Intelligence 103 (1998) 157–182.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R.M. Chisholm, Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic, Analysis 24 (1963) 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque, Intention is choice with commitment, Artificial Intelligence 42 (1990) 213–261.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi and F. Dignum, Autonomous norm acceptance, in: Intelligent Agents V; Proceedings of the ATAL'98, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1555 (Springer, Berlin, 1998) pp. 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Dennett, The Intentional Stance (MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  19. F. Dignum, Autonomous agents with norms, Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (1999) 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  20. F. Dignum, D. Morley, E. Sonenberg and L. Cavedon, Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000) (2000) pp. 111–118.

  21. F. Dretske, Explaining Behavior: Reasons in a World of Causes (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Dubois, L. Farinas del Cerro, A. Herzig and H. Prade, Qualitative relevance and independence: a roadmap, in: Proceedings of the IJCAI'97 (1997) pp. 62–67.

  23. T. Eiter, V.S. Subrahmanian and G. Pick, Heterogeneous active agents, I: Semantics, Artificial Intelligence 108 (1999) 179–255.

    Google Scholar 

  24. B.S. Firozabadi and L. van der Torre, Towards a formal analysis of control systems, in: Proceedings of the ECAI'98 (1998) pp. 317–318.

  25. J.W. Forrester, Gentle murder, or the adverbial Samaritan, Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984) 193–197.

    Google Scholar 

  26. L. Goble, Murder most gentle: the paradox deepens, Philosophical Studies 64 (1991) 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  27. B. Hansson, An analysis of some deontic logics, in: Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, ed. R. Hilpinen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1971) pp. 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Hollis, Penny pinching and backward induction, Journal of Philosophy 88 (1991) 473–488.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Hollis, Trust within Reason (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

  30. J.F. Horty, Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (1994) 35–65.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J.F. Horty, Nonmonotonic foundations for deontic logic, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D. Nute (Kluwer, 1997) pp. 17–44.

  32. J.F. Horty, Agency and Deontic Logic (Oxford University Press, 2001).

  33. R. Jeffrey, The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1983).

  34. R.E. Jennings, A utilitarian semantics for deontic logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (1974) 445–465.

    Google Scholar 

  35. A.J.I. Jones and I. Pörn, Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic, Synthese 65 (1985) 275–290.

    Google Scholar 

  36. A.J.I. Jones and M. Sergot, Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1992) 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A.J.I. Jones and M. Sergot, On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective, in: Deontic Logic in Computer Science, eds. J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa (Wiley, New York, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. Lang, Conditional desires and utilities – an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the ECAI'96 (1996) pp. 318–322.

  39. J. Lang, L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, Two types of conflicts between desires (and how to resolve them), in: Proceedings AAAI Spring Symposium Workshop on Game-Theoretic and Decision-Theoretic Approaches to Agency (GTDT2001) (2001).

  40. J. Lang, L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, Utilitarian desires, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. To appear.

  41. D. Lewis, Semantic analysis for dyadic deontic logic, in: Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis, ed. S. Stunland (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974) pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  42. R.D. Luce and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions (Wiley, New York, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  43. D. Makinson, Five faces of minimality, Studia Logica 52 (1993) 339–379.

    Google Scholar 

  44. D. Makinson, On a fundamental problem of deontic logic, in: Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, eds. P. McNamara and H. Prakken (IOS Press, 1999) pp. 29–54.

  45. D. Makinson and L. van der Torre, Input/output logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (2000) 383–408.

    Google Scholar 

  46. D. Makinson and L. van der Torre, Constraints for input/output logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (2001) 155–185.

    Google Scholar 

  47. L.T. McCarty, Defeasible deontic reasoning, Fundamenta Informaticae 21 (1994) 125–148.

    Google Scholar 

  48. L.T. McCarty, Modalities over actions: 1.Model theory, in: Proceedings of the KR'94 (1994) pp. 437–448.

  49. M. Morreau, Prima Facie and seeming duties, Studia Logica 57 (1996) 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  51. J. Pearl, From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory, in: Proceedings of the UAI'93 (1993) pp. 12–20.

  52. H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot, Contrary-to-duty obligations, Studia Logica 57 (1996) 91–115.

    Google Scholar 

  53. H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot, Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D. Nute (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997) pp. 223–262.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A. Rao and M. Georgeff, Modeling rational agents within a bdi architecture, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Knowledge Representation (KR91) (1991) pp. 473–484.

  55. A. Rao and M. Georgeff, An abstract architecture for rational agents, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Knowledge Representation (KR92) (1992) pp. 439–449.

  56. D. Ross, The Right and the Good (Oxford University Press, 1930).

  57. T. Sandholm and V. Lesser, Leveled commitment contracts and strategic breach, Games and Economic Behavior 35 (2001) 212–270.

    Google Scholar 

  58. L. Savage, The Foundations of Statistics (Wiley, New York, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  59. K. Schild, On the relationship between BDI logics and standard logics of concurrency, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3 (2000) 259–283.

    Google Scholar 

  60. W. Spohn, An analysis of Hansson's dyadic deontic logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (1975) 237–252.

    Google Scholar 

  61. W. Stelzner, Relevant deontic logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 21 (1992) 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

  62. R. Thomason, Deontic logic as founded on tense logic, in: New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, ed. R. Hilpinen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981) pp. 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  63. R. Thomason, Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals, in: Proceedings of KR'00 (2000) pp. 702–713.

  64. L. van der Torre, Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic, in: Proceedings of the ECAI'94 (1994) pp. 371–375.

  65. L. van der Torre, The logic of reusable propositional output with the fulfilment constraint, in: Labelled Deduction, eds. D. Basin et al., Applied Logic Series (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000) pp. 245–266.

    Google Scholar 

  66. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, ed. D. Nute (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997) pp. 79–121. Revised and extended version of L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic, in: Proceedings of the IJCAI'95 (1995) pp. 1525–1532.

    Google Scholar 

  67. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, The temporal analysis of Chisholm's paradox, in: Proceedings of the AAAI'98 (1998) pp. 650–655.

  68. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27 (1999) 49–78.

    Google Scholar 

  69. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (1999) 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  70. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Rights, duties and commitments between agents, in: Proceedings of the IJCAI'99 (1999) pp. 1239–1244.

  71. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Contextual deontic logic: violation contexts and factual defeasibility, in: Formal Aspects in Context, eds. P. Bonzon, M. Cavalcanti and R. Nossum, Applied Logic Series (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2000) pp. 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  72. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, Dynamic normative reasoning under uncertainty: how to distinguish between obligations under uncertainty and prima facie obligations, in: Agents, Reasoning and Dynamics, eds. P. Smets and D. Gabbay, DRUMS Handbook, Vol. 6 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001). Extended and revised combination of the following two papers: L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, An update semantics for prima facie obligations, in: Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'98) (1998) pp. 38–42; L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, An update semantics for defeasible obligations, in: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'99) (1999) pp. 631–638.

    Google Scholar 

  73. L. van der Torre and Y.-H. Tan, Two-phase deontic logic, Logique et Analyse, To appear.

  74. L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory, Applied Intelligence 14 (2001) 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  75. H. Verhagen, Norm autonomous agents, PhD Thesis, Stockholm University (2000).

  76. G.H. von Wright, The Logic of Preference (Edinburgh University Press, 1963).

  77. G.H. von Wright, An Essay on Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  78. G.H. von Wright, A new system of deontic logic, in: Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, ed. R. Hilpinen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1971) pp. 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  79. E. Weydert, Hyperrational conditional logic, in: Proceedings of the ECAI'92Workshop on Theoretical Foundations of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Springer, Berlin, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  80. R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer, Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview, in: Deontic Logic in Computer Science, eds. J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa (Wiley, Chichester, 1993) pp. 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Leendert van der Torre

Authors
  1. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Torre, L. Contextual Deontic Logic: Normative Agents, Violations and Independence. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 37, 33–63 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020207321544

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020207321544

Keywords

Search

Navigation