Normative Consequence: The Problem of Keeping It Whilst Giving It up

  • Audun Stolpe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5076)

Abstract

The problem of deriving implicit norms from explicitly given ones is at the heart of normative reasoning. In abstracto the problem is that of formalizing a plausible consequence relation taking norms to norms. I argue that any such relation should allow norms to be chained, even when the consequent of one is strictly stronger than the antecedent of another—i. e. even if logical inference is required to complete the chain. However, since it is commonly agreed that the set of items classically entailed by an obligatory proposition are not in general obligatory, we are left with the following problem: How do reserve the right to reason classically for the purpose of chaining, whilst not committing to the view that all items entailed by a norm are obligatory in the same sense. I shall argue that the problem can be given a natural solution with reference to different uses of a norm in a normative system.

Keywords

Normative systems input/output logic dynamics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brown, M.A.: Conditional obligation and positive permission for agents in time. Nordic Journal of Philsophical Logic 5(2), 83–111 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansson, S.O.: The Structure of Values and Norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philsophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 263–265. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makinson, D.: Bridges Between Classical and Nonmonotonic Logic. Texts in Computing, vol. 5. King’s College London Publications (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30, 155–185 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4), 391–416 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makinson, D., van der Torre, L.: What is input/output logic? In: Foundations of the Formal Sciences II: Applications of Mathematical Logic in Philosophy and Linguistics. Trend in Logic, vol. 17. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Makinson, D.: Bridges Between Classical and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Texts in Computing, vol. 5. Kings’ College London Publications (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McLaughlin, R.N.: Further problems of derived obligation. Mind, new series 4(64), 400–402 (1955)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    von Wright, G.H.: Is and Ought. In: Paulson, Paulson (eds.) Normativity and Norms, pp. 365–383. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audun Stolpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilsosophyUniversity of BergenNorway

Personalised recommendations