Deontic Logic

  • Jan Broersen
  • Dov Gabbay
  • Andreas Herzig
  • Emiliano Lorini
  • John-Jules Meyer
  • Xavier Parent
  • Leendert van der Torre
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)


Deontic logic is the logic of obligation and permission. In the literature it has mainly been studied in terms of a list of problems and that is the way we chose to present it in this section. There are three main categories of problems. The first category is concerned with the nature of norms. The second category concerns phenomena of conflict, violation and revision. Finally, the third category studies deontic phenomena in the context of other logical structures.


Belief Revision Normative Reasoning Deontic Logic Constitutive Norm Deontic Modality 
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.


  1. Ågotnes, T., M. Wooldridge, and W. van der Hoek. 2007. Normative system games. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2007), IFAMAAS (2007), Honolulu, ed. M. Huhns and O. Shehory, 876–883.Google Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, C. E., and D. C. Makinson. 1981. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 125–148. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alchourrón, C. E., and D. C. Makinson. 1982. The logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48: 14–37.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alchourrón, C., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Åqvist, L. 2008. Alchourrón and Bulygin on deontic logic and the logic of norm-propositions: Axiomatization and representability results. Logique et Analyse 51(203): 225–261.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Åqvist, L., and J. Hoepelman. 1981. Some theorems about a tree system of deontic tense logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 187–221. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartha, P. 1993. Conditional obligation, deontic paradoxes, and the logic of agency. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9(1–2): 1–23.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2003. Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL’03). Edimburgh, 109–118. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2006a. Constitutive norms in the design of normative multiagent systems. In Computational logic in multi-agent systems, 6th international workshop, CLIMA VI. LNCS, vol. 3900, 303–319. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2006b. A logical architecture of a normative system. In Deontic logic and artificial normative systems. Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on deontic logic in computer scicence, DEON 2006, Utrecht, ed. L. Goble and J. J. C. Meyer. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Boella, G., and L. van der Torre. 2008. Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boella, G., G. Pigozzi, and L. van der Torre. 2009. Five guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In JURIX, Rotterdam, 21–30.Google Scholar
  13. Booth, R., S. Kaci, and L. van der Torre. 2006. Merging rules: Preliminary version. In Proceedings of the eleventh international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning (NMR’06), Lake District, UK, 2–5 June 2006.Google Scholar
  14. Broersen, J. 2006. Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario. In Proceedings 8th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4048, ed. L. Goble and J. J. Meyer, 53–68. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Broersen, J. 2011. Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic 9(2): 127–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Broersen, J., M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. 2002. Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal 2(3–4): 428–447.Google Scholar
  17. Broersen, J., F. Dignum, V. Dignum, and J. J. Meyer. 2004. Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In Proceedings 7th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3065, ed. A. Lomuscio and D. Nute, 43–56. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Broersen, J., M. Dastani, and L. van der Torre. 2005. Beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires as components in an agent architecture. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 20(9): 893–920.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Broersen, J., R. Mastop, J. J. C. Meyer, and P. Turrini. 2008. A deontic logic for socially optimal norms. In Proceedings 9th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’08). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5076, ed. L. v. d. Torre and R. v. d. Meyden, 218–232. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Carmo, J., and A. Jones. 2002. Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 8, 2nd ed, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 265–344. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Castelfranchi, C., F. Dignum, C. M. Jonker, and J. Treur. 2000. Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In 6th international workshop on intelligent agents VI, agent theories, architectures, and languages (ATAL), 364–378. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Chisholm, R. 1963. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24(2): 33–36.Google Scholar
  23. Cholvy, L., and F. Cuppens. 1999. Reasoning about norms provided by conflicting regulations. In Norms, logics and information systems, ed. P. McNamara and H. Prakken. Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  24. Gabbay, D. M., G. Pigozzi, and J. Woods. 2003. Controlled revision – an algorithmic approach for belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(1): 3–22.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goble, L. 2007. Prima facie norms, normative conflicts and dilemmas. In Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems, ed. D. Gabbay, J. Horty, R. van der Meyden, and L. van der Torre. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Grégoire, E. 2004. Fusing legal knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (IEEE-IRI’2004), Las Vegas, 522–529.Google Scholar
  27. Grossi, D. 2007. Designing invisible handcuffs: Formal investigations in institutions and organizations for multi-agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  28. Grossi, D., J. J. C. Meyer, and F. Dignum. 2006. Classificatory aspects of counts-as: An analysis in modal logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 16(5): 613–643.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen, J. 2005. Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, J. 2008. Prioritized conditional imperatives: Problems and a new proposal. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1): 11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansson, B. 1969. An analysis of some deontic logics. No \(\hat{\text{ u}}\) s 3: 373–398.Google Scholar
  32. Herzig, A., E. Lorini, F. Moisan, and N. Troquard. 2011a. A dynamic logic of normative systems. In Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’11). Barcelona: IJCAI/AAAI.Google Scholar
  33. Herzig, A., E. Lorini, and N. Troquard. 2011b. A dynamic logic of institutional actions (regular paper). In Computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA), LNC-S/LNAI, ed. J. Leite and P. Torroni. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Horty, J. F. 2001. Agency and deontic logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Horty, J. 2007. Defaults with priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 367–413.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, A., and M. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of IGPL 3: 427–443.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kooi, B., and A. Tamminga. 2008. Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37(1): 1–21.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, F. 2008. Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis. ILLC Dissertation Series, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Loewer, B., and M. Belzer. 1983. Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese 54(2): 295–318.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Lorini, E., and D. Longin. 2008. A logical account of institutions: From acceptances to norms via legislators. In Proceedings of the international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2008), ed. G. Brewka and J. Lang, 38–48. Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  41. Lorini, E., D. Longin, B. Gaudou, and A. Herzig. 2009. The logic of acceptance: Grounding institutions on agents’ attitudes. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6): 901–940.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2000. Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29(4): 383–408.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2001. Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30(2): 155–185.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2003. Permissions from an input-output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4): 391–416.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer, J. J. C. 1988. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29: 109–136.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Parent, X. 2003. Remedial interchange, contrary-to-duty obligation and commutation. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(3/4): 345–375.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Parent, X. 2010. Moral particularism and deontic logic. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on deontic logic (DEON’10), pp. 84–96, ed. G. Governatori and G. Sartor. Berlin/ Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Parent, X. 2011. Moral particularism in the light of deontic logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19: 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pauly, M. 2002. A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1): 149–166.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Prakken, H., and M. Sergot. 1997. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligation. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 223–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stolpe, A. 1997. Relevance, derogation and permission. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 98–115. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  53. Stolpe, A. 2010. A theory of permission based on the notion of derogation. Journal of Applied Logic 8(1): 97–113.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomason, R. H. 1981. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In New studies in deontic logic, ed. R. Hilpinen, 165–176. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van der Torre, L., and Y. H. Tan. 1997. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Defeasible deontic logic, ed. D. Nute, 79–121. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Broersen
    • 1
  • Dov Gabbay
    • 2
  • Andreas Herzig
    • 3
  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 3
  • John-Jules Meyer
    • 1
  • Xavier Parent
    • 4
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Logic, Interaction, Language, and Computation Group, IRITUniversité Paul SabatierToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Individual and Collective Reasoning (ICR) groupUniversity of LuxembourgWalferdangeLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations