ModelAge Workshop on Formal Models of Agents

ModelAge 1997: Formal Models of Agents pp 240-251 | Cite as

Contextual Deontic Logic

  • Leendert W. N. van der Torre
  • Yao-Hua Tan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1760)


In this article we propose contextual deontic logic. Contextual obligations are written as O(α | βγ), and are to be read as ‘α should be the case if β is the case, unless is the case’. The unless clause is analogous to the justification in Reiter’s default rules. We show how contextual obligations can be used to solve certain aspects of contrary-to-duty paradoxes of dyadic deontic logic.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alc93.
    C. E. Alchourrón. Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals. In Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pages 43–84. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Bou94a.
    C. Boutilier. Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68:87–154, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bou94b.
    C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’94), pages 75–86, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. BT96.
    Philippe Besnard and Yao-Hua Tan. A modal logic with context-dependent inference for non-monotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of ECAI96, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Che74.
    B.F. Chellas. Conditional obligation. In Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis, pages 23–33. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1974.Google Scholar
  6. Chi63.
    R.M. Chisholm. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24:33–36, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. For84.
    J.W. Forrester. Gentle murder, or the adverbial Samaritan. Journal of Philosophy, 81:193–197, 1984.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Gab91.
    D. Gabbay. Labelled deductive systems. Technical report, Centrum fur Informations und Sprachverarbeitung, Universitat Munchen, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. Han71.
    B. Hansson. An analysis of some deontic logics. In Deontic Logic: Introductionary and Systematic Readings, pages 121–147. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  10. Jen74.
    R.E. Jennings. A utilitarian semantics for deontic logic. Journal of PHhilisophical Logic, 3:445–465, 1974.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. JS92.
    A.J.I. Jones and M. Sergot. Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1:45–64, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lan96.
    J. Lang. Conditional desires and utilities-an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the ECAI’96, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. Lew74.
    D. Lewis. Semantic analysis for dyadic deontic logic. In Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis, pages 1–14. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. PS94.
    H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Contrary-to-duty imperatives, defeasibility and violability. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (Deon’94), Oslo, 1994. To appear in: Studia Logica.Google Scholar
  15. Rei80.
    R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. RL92.
    Y.U. Ryu and R.M. Lee. Defeasible deontic reasoning and its applications to normative systems. Technical report, Euridis, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. Roy96.
    L. Royakkers. Representing Legal Rules in Deontic Logic. PhD thesis, University of Brabant, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Smi94.
    T. Smith. Legal Expert Systems: Discussion of Theoretical Assumptions. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. Tom81.
    J.E. Tomberlin. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and conditional obligation. Noûs, 16:357–375, 1981.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. TvdT96.
    Y.-H. Tan and L.W.N. van der Torre. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems, Proceedings of the third workshop on deontic logic in computer science (ΔEON’96), pages 216–232. Springer Verlag, Workshops in Computer Science, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. vdTT95.
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), pages 1525–1532. Morgan Kaufman, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. vdTT97a.
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. The different faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  23. vdTT97b.
    L.W.N. van der Torre and Y.H. Tan. Prohairetic deontic logic and qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of AAAI spring symposium, 1997. To appear.Google Scholar
  24. vE82.
    J. van Eck. A system of temporally relative modal and deontic predicate logic and its philosophical applications. Logique et Analyse, 99,100, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. Vel96.
    F. Veltman. Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25:221–261, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert W. N. van der Torre
    • 1
  • Yao-Hua Tan
    • 2
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institute for Computer ScienceSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.EuridisErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations