Discussion Paper: Changing Norms Is Changing Obligation Change

  • Jan Broersen
  • Dov Gabbay
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7393)

Abstract

Norm change is one of the main challenges for normative reasoning. This discussion paper presents some novel informal and semi-formal ideas regarding the nature and formalization of norm change. First, we contrast the second-order nature of norm change with the first-order nature of obligation change. Second, we discuss how to change the normative system to avoid future obligations in the input/output logic framework, which explicitly distinguishes norms from obligations. Third, we present a semantical two dimensional view on change. Fourth, we illustrate norm change using automata changing automata. Fifth, we compare norm change with analogous mechanisms in non-normative contexts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baltag, A., Smets, S.: Group belief dynamics under iterated revision: fixed points and cycles of joint upgrades. In: TARK 2009: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, pp. 41–50. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about Norms, Obligations, Time and Agents. In: Ghose, A., Governatori, G., Sadananda, R. (eds.) PRIMA 2007. LNCS, vol. 5044, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broersen, J., Brunel, J.: ‘What I Fail to Do Today, I Have to Do Tomorrow’: A Logical Study of the Propagation of Obligations. In: Sadri, F., Satoh, K. (eds.) CLIMA VIII 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5056, pp. 82–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J.: Strategic Deontic Temporal Logic as a Reduction to ATL, with an Application to Chisholm’s Scenario. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen, J.: Issues in Designing Logical Models for Norm Change. In: Vouros, G., Artikis, A., Stathis, K., Pitt, J. (eds.) OAMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5368, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F.P.M., 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), doi:10.1007/b98159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about Norms, Obligations, Time and Agents. In: Ghose, A., Governatori, G., Sadananda, R. (eds.) PRIMA 2007. LNCS, vol. 5044, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crochemore, M., Gabbay, D.: Reactive automata. Information and Computation 209(4), 692–704 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elster, J.: Ulysses and the Sirens (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Fraassen, B.: Belief and the problem of Ulysses and the Sirens. Philosophical Studies 77, 7–37 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pigozzi, G., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: A normative framework for norm change. In: AAMAS 2009: Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Journal of Logic and Computation (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logic. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pp. 121–147. Reidel (1971); reprinted from Nous 3, 373-398 (1969) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansson, S.O.: A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosphical Logic 29, 383–408 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Permission from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(26), 391–416 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29(4), 383–408 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30(2), 155–185 (2001)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parfit, D.: Reasons and Persons (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, M.: The Humean theory of motivation. Mind 96, 36–61 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tinnemeier, N., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.: Programming norm change. In: AAMAS 2010: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  • Dov Gabbay
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 4
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Bar Ilan UniversityIsrael
  3. 3.King’s College LondonUK
  4. 4.University of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations