Towards Metalogical Systematisation of Deontic Action Logics Based on Boolean Algebra

  • Robert Trypuz
  • Piotr Kulicki
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6181)

Abstract

The aim of the present paper is to provide a metalogical systematisation in the area of deontic action logic based on Boolean algebra. Differences among the systems in question lie in two aspects: the level of closedness of a deontic action logic and the possibility of performing no action at all. It is also shown that the existing definitions of obligation in those systems are not acceptable due to their unintuitive interpretation or paradoxical consequences. As a solution we propose an axiomatic characterisation of obligation with an adequate class of models.

Keywords

Deontic action logic obligation Boolean algebra 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Castañeda, H.N.: The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The simplest colution to all of them in one fell swoop. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, pp. 37–85. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castro, P.F., Maibaum, T.S.E.: A Tableaux System for Deontic Action Logic. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro, P.F., Maibaum, T.S.E.: Deontic action logic, atomic boolean algebras and fault-tolerance. J. of Applied Logic 7(4), 441–466 (2009)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J.: Free choice and contextually permitted actions. Studia Logica 57(1), 193–220 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Føllesdal, D., Hilpinen, R.: Deontic logic: an introduction. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Reading, pp. 1–35. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1971)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hughes, J., Royakkers, L.M.M.: Don’t Ever Do That! Long-term Duties in PDeL. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 131–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalinowski, J.: Theorie des propositions normatives. Studia Logica 1, 147–182 (1953)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lokhorst, C.G.-J.: Reasoning about actions and obligations in first-order logic. Studia Logica 57(1), 221–237 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCarty, L.T.: Permissions and Obligations. In: Proccedings of IJCAI-83, pp. 287–294 (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Der Meyden, R.: The dynamic logic of permission. J. of Logic and Computation 6, 465–479 (1996)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer, J.J.C.: A Different Approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1, 109–136 (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ross, A.: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Segerberg, K.: Action-games. Acta Philosophica Fennica 32, 220–231 (1981)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Segerberg, K.: A Deontic Logic of Action. Studia Logica 41, 269–282 (1982)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trypuz, R., Kulicki, R.: A systematics of deontic action logics based on boolean algebra. Logic and Logical Philosophy (forthcoming, 2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind LX(237), 1–15 (1951)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North Holland, Amsterdam (1968)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Trypuz
    • 1
  • Piotr Kulicki
    • 1
  1. 1.John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations