Don’t Ever Do That! Long-Term Duties in PDeL

  • Jesse Hughes
  • Lambèr Royakkers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4048)


This paper studies long-term norms concerning actions. In Meyer’s Propositional Deontic Logic (PD e L), only immediate duties can be expressed, however, often one has duties of longer durations such as: “Never do that”, or “Do this someday”. In this paper, we will investigate how to amend PD e L so that such long-term duties can be expressed. This leads to the interesting and suprising consequence that the long-term prohibition and obligation are not interdefinable in our semantics, while there is a duality between these two notions. As a consequence, we have provided a new analysis of the long-term obligation by introducing a new atomic proposition I (indebtedness) to represent the condition that an agent has some unfulfilled obligation.


Atomic Action Atomic Proposition Label Transition System Action Term 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. Anderson, A.R.: Some nasty problems in the formalization of ethics. Noûs 1, 345–360 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castañeda, H.-N.: The paradoxes of deontic logic. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New studies in deontic logic, pp. 37–85. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  3. Harel, D.: Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. II, pp. 497–604. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1984)Google Scholar
  4. Kelly, K.: The logic of reliable inquiry. Logic and Computation in Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, 106–136 (1988)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Meyer, J.-J.C.: Using programming concepts in deontic reasoning. In: Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J.F.A.K., van Emde Boas, P. (eds.) Semantics and contextual expression, pp. 117–145. FORIS publications, Dordrecht (1989)Google Scholar
  7. Meyer, J.-J.C.: Dynamic logic for reasoning about actions and agents. In: Logic-based artificial intelligence, pp. 281–311. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2000)Google Scholar
  8. von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesse Hughes
    • 1
  • Lambèr Royakkers
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations