Strategic Deontic Temporal Logic as a Reduction to ATL, with an Application to Chisholm’s Scenario

  • Jan Broersen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4048)


In this paper we extend earlier work on deontic deadlines in CTL to the framework of alternating time temporal logic (ATL). The resulting setting enables us to model several concepts discussed in the deontic logic literature. Among the issues discussed are: conditionality, ought implies can, deliberateness, settledness, achievement obligations versus maintenance obligations and deontic detachment. We motivate our framework by arguing for the importance of temporal order obligations, from the standpoint of agent theory as studied in computer science. In particular we will argue that in general achievement obligations cannot do without a deadline condition saying the achievement has to take place before it. Then we define our logic as a reduction to ATL. We demonstrate the applicability of the logic by discussing a possible solution to Chisholm’s paradox. The solution differs considerably from other known temporal approaches to the paradox.


Temporal Logic Agent Theory Negative Condition Deontic Logic Validity Time 
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.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. In: FOCS 1997: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1997), pp. 100–109. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, A.R.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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, vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J.M., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: From coalition logic to stit. In: Proceedings LCMAS 2005. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen, J.M., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Semantic analysis of chisholm’s paradox. In: Verbeeck, K., Tuyls, K., Nowe, A., Manderick, B., Kuijpers, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Artificial Intelligence Conference, pp. 28–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(3), 213–261 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dignum, F., Kuiper, R.: Obligations and dense time for specifying deadlines. In: Proceedings of thirty-First HICSS, Hawaii (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Eck, J.A.: A system of temporally relative modal and deontic predicate logic and its philosophical applications. Logique et Analyse 100, 339–381 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hustadt, U., Konev, B.: TRP++ 2.0: A temporal resolution prover. In: Baader, F. (ed.) CADE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2741, pp. 274–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindström, S., Rabinowicz, W.: Unlimited doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis 50, 353–385 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loewer, B., Belzer, M.: Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese 54, 295–318 (1983)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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, 109–136 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.: Contrary-to-duty obligations and defeasible reasoning. Studia Logica 57, 91–115 (1996)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J., Dignum, F.P.M., Weigand, H.: Formal Specification of Interaction in Agent Societies. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A., Gordon-Spears, D.F. (eds.) FAABS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2699, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations