Contrary-To-Duties in Games

  • Paolo Turrini
  • Xavier Parent
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Silvano Colombo Tosatto
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7360)


The aim of the paper is to bring to the realm of game theory the well-known deontic notion of contrary-to-duty (CTD) obligation, so far not investigated in relation to optimality of strategic decisions. We maintain that, under a game-theoretical semantics, CTDs are well-suited to treat sub-ideal decisions. We also argue that, in a wide class of interactions, CTDs can used as a compact representation of coalitional choices leading to the achievement of optimal outcomes. Finally we investigate the properties of the proposed operators.


Deontic logic games CTDs optimality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdou, J.: Rectangularity and tightness: A normal form characterization of perfect information extensive game forms. Mathematics of Operations Research 3(23), 553–567 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing The Future: Agents And Choice. In: Our Indeterminist World. Oxford University Press, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., Herzig, A., Troquard, N.: A normal simulation of coalition logic and an epistemic extension. In: Samet, D. (ed.) Proceedings Theoretical Aspects Rationality and Knowledge (TARK XI), Brussels, pp. 92–101. ACM Digital Library (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broersen, J., Mastop, R., Meyer, J.J.C., Turrini, P.: A Deontic Logic for Socially Optimal Norms. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 218–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 265–344. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goble, L.: Preference semantics for deontic logics. Part I: Simple models. Logique & Analyse 46(183-184), 383–418 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansson, B.: An analysis of some deontic logics. Noûs 3, 373–398 (1969); Reprinted in [8, pp. 121–147] Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hilpinen, R. (ed.): Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel, Dordrecht (1971)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kooi, B., Tamminga, A.: Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37(1), 1–21 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, D.K.: Counterfactuals. Blackwell, Oxford (1973)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parent, X.: On the Strong Completeness of Åqvist’s Dyadic Deontic Logic G. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 189–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prakken, H., Sergot, M.: Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligation. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 223–262. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prakken, H., Sergotk, M.: Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 57(1), 91–115 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shoham, Y.: Reaoning about changes. MIT (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spohn, W.: An analysis of Hansson’s dyadic deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 4(2), 237–252 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turrini, P.: Strategic Reasoning in Interdependence: Logical and Game-theoretical Investigations. SIKS Dissertation Series, PhD Thesis (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turrini, P., Grossi, D., Broersen, J., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Forbidding Undesirable Agreements: A Dependence-Based Approach to the Regulation of Multi-agent Systems. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 306–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Turrini
    • 1
  • Xavier Parent
    • 1
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 1
  • Silvano Colombo Tosatto
    • 1
  1. 1.Individual and Collective Reasoning Group (ICR), Computer Science and Communications (CSC), Faculty of Sciences, Technology and Communication (FSTC)University of LuxembourgKalergiLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations