Deontic Redundancy: A Fundamental Challenge for Deontic Logic

  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6181)


To decide which norms can be removed from a system, we need to know when a norm is redundant. After shifting the focus of attention in deontic logic from detachment of obligations and permissions to deontic redundancy, I discuss in this paper five benchmark examples of deontic redundancy in reasoning about permissions, intermediate concepts and constitutive norms, deontic dilemmas, temporal deontic reasoning and contrary-to-duty reasoning. Then I discuss those benchmark examples in four formal approaches to deontic reasoning: traditional model logic, dynamic approaches, violation oriented or diagnostic systems, and imperativist or norm based approaches.


Modal Logic Multiagent System Normative System Normative Reasoning Deontic Logic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.: Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals. In: Meyer, J.-J., Wieringa, R. (eds.) Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 43–84. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchourron, C.E., Makinson, D.: Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New studies in deontic logic, pp. 125–148. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alchourrón, C., Bulygin, E.: Pragmatic foundations for a logic of norms. Rechtstheorie 15, 453–464 (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, A.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aucher, G., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Dynamic epistemic deontic logic. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6181, pp. 197–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J., Wolter, F.: Handbook of Modal Logics. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bobbio, N.: Norma. In: Enciclopedia Einaudi, Torino, Einaudi, vol. 9, pp. 876–907 (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bochman, A.: Explanatory Nonmonotonic Reasoning. World Scientific Publishing, London (2005)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boella, G., Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about constitutive norms, counts-as conditionals, institutions, deadlines and violations. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.-T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environments. Artif. Intell. Law 16(1), 53–71 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.W.N.: BDIOCTL: Obligations and the specification of agent behavior. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) IJCAI-03, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico, August 9-15, pp. 1389–1390. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Conditional norms and dyadic obligations in time. In: Ghallab, M., Spyropoulos, C.D., Fakotakis, N., Avouris, N.M. (eds.) Proceedings of ECAI 2008 - 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Patras, Greece, July 21-25. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 178, pp. 883–884. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about norms, obligations, time and agents. In: Ghose, A.K., Governatori, G., Sadananda, R. (eds.) Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems, 10th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents, PRIMA 2007, Revised Papers, Bangkok, Thailand, November 21-23. LNCS, vol. 5044, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bulygin, E.: Permissive norms and normative systems. In: Martino, A., Socci Natali, F. (eds.) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, pp. 211–218. Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chellas, B.: Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forrester, J.W.: Gentle murder, or the adverbial samaritan. Journal of Philosophy 81, 193–197 (1984)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gabbay, D.M.: Reactive kripke models and contrary to duty obligations. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 155–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goble, L.: A logic for deontic dilemmas. J. Applied Logic 3(3-4), 461–483 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J.C., Dignum, F.: Counts-as: Classification or constitution? an answer using modal logic. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 115–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansen, J.: Imperatives and deontic logic: On the semantic foundations of deontic logic. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, March 18-23, vol. 07122 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logics. Nôus 3, 373–398 (1969)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of IGPL 3, 427–443 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewis, D.: A problem about permission. In: Saarinen, E. (ed.) Essays in Honour of Jaakko Hintikka, pp. 163–175. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindahl, L.: Norms, meaning postulates, and legal predicates. In: Garzón Valdés, E. (ed.) Normative Systems in Legal and Moral Theory. Festschrift for Carlos E. Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin, pp. 293–307. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Makinson, D.: On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 29–54. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29(4), 383–408 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30(2), 155–185 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Permissions from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4), 391–416 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Makinson, D.: Ways of doing logic: What was different about agm 1985? J. Logic Computat. 13(1), 515 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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 29(1), 109–136 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan, Y.-H., van der Torre, L.W.N.: How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In: Brown, M.A., Carmo, J. (eds.) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems, DEON ’96: Third International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Workshops in Computing, Sesimbra, Portugal, January 11-13, pp. 216–232. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tinnemeier, N.A.M., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Programming normative artifacts with declarative obligations and prohibitions. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, IAT 2009, Milan, Italy, September 15-18, pp. 145–152. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    van der Torre, L., Tan, Y.-H.: Deontic update semantics. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 73–89. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 27(1-4), 49–78 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 51–67 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: Rights, duties and commitments between agents. In: Dean, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI ’99, Stockholm, Sweden, July 31 - August 6, 2 vols., 1450 pages, pp. 1239–1246. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: An update semantics for defeasible obligations. In: Laskey, K.B., Prade, H. (eds.) UAI ’99: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, July 30-August 1, pp. 631–638. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: Dynamic normative reasoning under uncertainty: How to distinguish between obligations under uncertainty and prima facie obligations. In: Gabbay, D.M., Smets, P. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Agents, Reasoning and Dynamics, vol. 6, pp. 267–297. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    van der Torre, L.W.N.: Reasoning about Obligations: Defeasibility in Preference-Based Deontic Logic. PhD thesis, Erasmus University of Rotterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.-H.: Two phase deontic logic. Logique et Analyse 171-172, 411–426 (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Veltman, F.: Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3), 221–261 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action. In: A logical Inquiry, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1963)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    von Wright, G.H.: On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 15–25. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weydert, E.: Hyperrational conditionals - monotonic reasoning about nested default conditionals. In: Lakemeyer, G., Nebel, B. (eds.) ECAI-WS 1992. LNCS, vol. 810, pp. 310–332. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weydert, E.: System jlz - rational default reasoning by minimal ranking constructions. J. Applied Logic 1(3-4), 273–308 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
  1. 1.Individual and Collective Reasoning, Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations