Advertisement

Logic and Ethics: An Integrated Model for Norms, Intentions and Actions

  • Alessandra Marra
  • Dominik Klein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9394)

Abstract

The paper investigates the way norms relate to and affect agents’ intentions and actions. Current work in deontic logic dealing with agency mainly falls within two different groups: a variety of frameworks which adopt a purely external approach and represent agency in terms of possible outcomes of actions, and frameworks which instead endorse an internal approach and focus exclusively on the agent’s intentions. The paper argues that neither of these models alone can produce a satisfactory analysis. An integrated model which combines the internal and external approaches is therefore put forward. The model is dynamic and represents the change that accepting a goal norm triggers in an agent’s intentions (especially the so-called “prior-intentions”) and actions.

Keywords

Apple Juice Deontic Logic Dynamic Logic External Approach Normative Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Resolving Conflicts Between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions, and Desires. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, p. 568. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J.: Modal Action Logic for Reasoning about Reactive Systems. PhD Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broersen, J.: Logics for (Artificial) Agency, Unpublished Manuscript, ESSLLI, Düsseldorf (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is Choice with Commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum et al.: A Modal Approach to Intentions, Commitments and Obligations. In: Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Springer (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Ditmarsch, H., et al.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Ditmarsch, H., de Lima, T., Lorini, E.: Intention Change via Local Assignments. In: Dastani, M., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Hübner, J., Leite, J. (eds.) LADS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6822, pp. 136–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibbard, A.: Reconciling our Aims. Oxford University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilpinen, R.: Deontic Logic. In: Goble, L. (ed.) Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, pp. 159–182. Blackwell (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilpinen, R., McNamara, P.: Deontic Logic: A Historical Survey and Introduction. In: Gabbay, D., et al. (eds.) Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. College Publications (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Hoek, W., et al.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horty J.F., Belnap N.: The Deliberative Stit: A Study of Action, Omission, Ability, and Obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24(6) (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Icard, T., et al.: Joint Revision of Belief and Intention. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindström, S., Segerberg, K.: Modal Logic and Philosophy. In: Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J., Wolter, F. (eds.) Handbook of Modal Logic, Studies in Logic and Practical Reasoning, vol. 3, pp. 1153–1218 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorini, E., Herzig, A.: A Logic of Intention and Attempt. Synthese 163, 45–77 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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) (1988)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roy, O.: Thinking Before Acting. PhD Thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Searle, J.: Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shoham, Y.: Logical Theories of Intention and the Database Perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(6) (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veltman, F.: Or else, what? Imperatives on the borderline of semantics and pragmatics. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Amsterdam (2011), https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/u.endriss/teaching/lolaco/2011/slides/veltman.pdf
  23. 23.
    van Zee, M., et al.: AGM Revision of Beliefs about Action and Time. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandra Marra
    • 1
  • Dominik Klein
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Logic, Ethics and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Political Theory GroupUniversity of BambergBambergGermany
  3. 3.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations