CONTEXT 1999: Modeling and Using Context pp 361-374 | Cite as

Violation Contexts and Deontic Independence

  • Leendert van der Torre
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1688)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the role of context and independence in normative reasoning. First, deontic operators — obligations, prohibitions, permissions — referring to the ideal context may conflict with operators referring to a violation (or contrary-to-duty) context. Second, deontic independence is a powerful concept to derive deontic operators from such operators of other violation contexts. These two concepts are used to determine how to proceed once a norm has been violated, a key issue of deontic logic applications in computer science. We also show how violation contexts and deontic independence can be used to give a new analysis of several notorious paradoxes of deontic logic.

Keywords

Normative Reasoning Deontic Logic Independence Relation Ideal Context Reasoning Context 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C.E. Alchourrffon and Bulygin. The expressive conception of norms. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, pages 95–124. D. Reidel, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Åqvist. Systematic frame constants in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 59–77. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Asher and D. Bonevac. Prima facie obligation. Studia Logica, 57:19–45, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Bacchus and A.J. Grove. Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of KR’96, pages 542–552, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Belzer. A logic of deliberation. In Proceedings of the AAAI’86, pages 38–43, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Practical handling of exception-tainted rules and independence information in possibilistic logic. Applied Intelligence, 9:101–127, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the KR’94, pages 75–86, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Carmo and A.J.I. Jones. A new approach to contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 317–344. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.M. Chisholm. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24:33–36, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Conte and R. Falcone. ICMAS’96: Norms, obligations, and conventions. AI Magazine, 18,4:145–147, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Dubois, L. Farinas del Cerro, A. Herzig, and H. Prade. Qualitative relevance and independence: a roadmap. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’97, pages 62–67, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B.S. Firozabadi and L.W.N. van der Torre. Towards a formal analysis of control systems. In Proceedings of the ECAI’98, pages 317–318, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.W. Forrester. Gentle murder, or the adverbial Samaritan. Journal of Philosophy, 81:193–197, 1984.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Goble. Murder most gentle: the paradox deepens. Philosophical Studies, 64:217–227, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Hansson. An analysis of some deontic logics. In R. Hilpinen, editor, Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 121–147. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.J.I. Jones and I. Pörn. Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese, 65:275–290, 1985.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Lang. Conditional desires and utilities — an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the ECAI’96, pages 318–322, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Makinson. On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 29–54. IOS Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Makinson and L. van der Torre. The logic of reusable propositional output. 1999. Submitted.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L.T. McCarty. Modalities over actions: 1. model theory. In Proceedings of the KR’94, pages 437–448, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Morreau. Prima Facie and seeming duties. Studia Logica, 57:47–71, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Pearl. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the UAI’93, pages 12–20, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica, 57:91–115, 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 223–262. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Ross. The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press, 1930.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Stelzner. Relevant deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21:193–216, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y. Tan and L. 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 ΔEON’96, Workshops in Computing, pages 216–232. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Thomason. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, pages 165–176. D. Reidel, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. van der Torre. Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the ECAI’94, pages 371–375, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. van der Torre. The logic of reusable propositional output with the fullment constraint. In Labelled Deduction, Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’95, pages 1525–1532, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 79–121. Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL). In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1489, pages 77–91. Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. The temporal analysis of Chisholm’s paradox. In Proceedings of the AAAI’98, pages 650–655, 1998.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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), pages 38–42, 1998.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Contextual deontic logic: violation contexts and factual defeasibility. In M. Cavalcanti, editor, Formal Aspects in Context, Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Rights, duties and commitments between agents. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’99, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. An update semantics for defeasible obligations. In Proceedings of the UAI’99, 1999.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 73–90. IOS Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    G.H. von Wright. A new system of deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 105–120. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic: as I see it. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 15–25. IOS Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pages 17–40. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations