Advertisement

The Logic of Normative Systems

  • Arnold A. Johanson
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

This paper exploits the properties of adjointness to develop a theory of norms. The adjoints are a pair of mappings between two logics, one called IMP, a logic of imperatives, and another called PROP, which is ordinary logic. In particular, L is a mapping form Prop to IMP and it has a right adjoint R from IMP to PROP. Norms are defined, formally, as statements that contain occurrences of RU where U is in IMP. A sample theorem (reminiscent of Kant’s “ought implies can”): Responsibility implies power and, moreover, incapacity implies immunity.

Keywords

Traffic Light Simple Norm Conjunctive Normal Form Deontic Logic Elementary Norm 
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.
    Ranger, S. New foundations for ethical theory. Privately distributed, Stockholm, 1957. Reprinted in Hilpinen [11]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ranger, S. Law and logic. Theoria 1972. 38.3:105–132Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mill, J.S. A system of logic. Longmans, Green, and Co., London, 1898 ed.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLarty, C. Elementary categories, elementary toposes. Clarendon, Oxford, 1993Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacLane, S. Categories for the working mathematician. Springer, New York, 1971Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hofstader, A. & McKinsey, J. On the logic of imperatives. Philosophy of Science 1939. 6:446–457.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munroe, M. E. The language of mathematics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1963Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansson, B. An analysis of some deontic logics. Noûs 1969. 3:373–398. Reprinted in Hilpinen [11]MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johanson, A. Imperative logic as based on a Galois connection. Theoria 1988. 54.1:1–24MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, C.I. & Langford, C.H. Symbolic logic. Dover, New York, 1959MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilpinen, R. (ed) Deontic logic: introductory and systematic readings. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1971MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birkhoff, G. Lattice theory. American Mathematical Society, New York, 1948MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanger, S. & Kanger, H. Rights and parliamentarianism. Theoria 1966. 32.6:85–115.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snyder, P. Modal logic. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1971Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold A. Johanson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations