Acts of Promising in Dynamified Deontic Logic
In this paper, the logic of acts of commanding ECL II introduced in Yamada (2007b) will be extended in order to model acts of promising together with acts of commanding. Effects of both kinds of acts are captured in terms, not of changes they bring about on propositional attitudes of their addressees, but of changes they bring about on deontic status of relevant action alternatives; they are modeled as deontic updators. This enables us to see how an act of promising performed by an agent and an act of commanding performed by another agent can jointly bring about a conflict of obligations. Complete axiomatization will be presented, and a comparison with Searle’s treatment of acts of promising in his argument for the derivability of “ought” from “is” will be made.
KeywordsProof System Deontic Logic Constitutive Rule Special Obligation Dynamic Extension
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures. Harvard University(1955). In: Urmson, J.O., Sbisà, M. (eds.) How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn., Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1955)Google Scholar
- Baltag, A., Moss, L.S., Solecki, S.: The Logic of Public Announcements, Common Knowledge, and Private Suspicions. Technical Report TR534. Department of Computer Science (CSCI), Indiana University (1999)Google Scholar
- Jeske, D.: Special Obligations. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/special-obligations/
- Kooi, B., van Benthem, J.: Reduction Axioms for Epistemic Actions. In: Schmidt, R., et al. (eds): Preliminary Proceedings of AiML-,: Advances in Modal Logic. Technical Report Series, UMCS-04-9-1, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester pp. 197-211 (2004)Google Scholar
- Plaza, J.A.: Logics of public communications. In: Emrich, M.L., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 201–216 (1989)Google Scholar
- Sbisà, M.: How to Read Austin. A lecture read at the 9th International Pragmatics Conference, Riva del Garda, July 10–15 (2005) Google Scholar
- Searle, J.: How to Derive “Ought” from “Is”. The Philosophical Review (January 1964)Google Scholar
- Searle, J.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
- Searle, J.: Expression and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)Google Scholar
- Yamada, T.: An Ascription-Based Theory of Illocutionary Acts. In: Vanderveken, D., Kubo, S. (eds.) Essays in Speech Act Theory. Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, vol. 77, pp. 151–174. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia (2002)Google Scholar
- Yamada, T.: Logical Dynamics of Some Speech Acts that Affect Obligations and Preferences. In: van Benthem, J., Ju, S., Veltman, F. (eds.) A Meeting of Minds. Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction, Beijing. Texts in Computer Science, vol. 8, pp. 275–289. College Publications, London (2007c)Google Scholar