Abstract
We present a solution to the paradox of free choice permission by introducing strong and weak permission in a deontic logic of action. It is shown how counterintuitive consequences of strong permission can be avoided by limiting the contexts in which an action can be performed. This is done by introducing the only operator, which allows us to say that only α is performed (and nothing else), and by introducing contextual interpretation of action terms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aqvist, L., 1984, ‘Deontic logic’, In D. M. Gabbay and F. Günthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, 605–714, Reidel.
al-Hibri, A., 1978, Deontic Logic: A Comprehensive Appraisal and a New Proposal. University Press of America.
Baeten, J. C. M., and W. P. Weijland, 1990, Process Algebra, Cambridge University Press.
Broy, M., 1986, ‘A theory for nondeterminism, parallelism, communication and concurrency’, Theoretical Computer Science 45, 1–62.
de Bakker, J. W., J. N. Kok, J. -J. Ch. Meyer, E. -R. Olderog, and J. I. Zucker, 1986, ‘Contrasting themes in the semantics of imperative concurrency’. In J. W. de Bakker, W.P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Current Trends in Concurrency: Overviews and Tutorials, 51–121. LCNS 224 Springer, Berlin.
Castañeda, H. -N., 1981, ‘The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop’. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, 37–85, Reidel.
Dignum, F., 1989, A language for modelling knowledge bases. Ph.d. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Dignum, F., and J. -J. Ch. Meyer, 1990, ‘Negations of transactions and their use in the specification of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints’. In M. Kwiatkowska, M.W. Shields, and R.M. Thomas, editors, Semantics for Concurrency, Leicester 1990, 61–80, Springer, Berlin.
scDignum, F., 1992, ‘Using transactions in integrity constraints’, Workshop on Applied Logic, Amsterdam.
Gamut, L. T. F., 1991, Logic, Language and Meaning 1: Introduction to Logic, University of Chicago Press. L. T. F. Gamut is a pseudonym for J. F. A. K. van Benthem, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, M. Stokhof, and H. Verkuyl.
Gamut, L. T. F., 1991, Logic, Language and Meaning 2: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar, University of Chicago Press. L. T. F. Gamut is a pseudonym for J. F. A. K. van Benthem, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, M. Stokhof, and H. Verkuyl.
Harel, D., 1979, First Order Dynamic Logic, Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 68.
Hilpinen, R., 1981, ‘Conditionals in possible worlds’. In G. Fløstad, editor, Contemporary Philosophy, a New Survey 1, 299–335. Reidel.
Kamp, H., 1973–1974, ‘Free choice permission’, Aristotelian Society Proceedings N. S. 74, 57–74.
Khosla, S., and T. S. E. Maibaum, 1987, ‘The prescription and description of state based systems’. In B. Banieqbal, H. Barringer, and A. Pnueli, editors, Temporal Logic in Specification, 243–294, Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 398.
Kozen, D., and J. Tiuryn, 1990, ‘Logics of programs’. In Jan van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, 789–840, Elsevier Science Publishers.
McCarty, L. T., 1983, ‘Permissions and obligationsz’, Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 287–294, Karlsruhe, W. Germany, Kaufmann.
McCarty, L. T., 1985, ‘Permissions and obligations: An informal introduction’. In A.A. Martino and F.S. Natali, editors, Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, 307–337. North-Holland, 1986. Edited versions of selected papers from the Second International Conference on “Logic, Informatics, Law,” Florence, Italy.
Meyer, J. -J. Ch., 1987, ‘A simple solution to the ‘deepest’ paradox in deontic logic’, Logique et Analyse, Nouvelle Série 30, 81–90.
Meyer, J. -J. Ch., 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.
Meyer, J. -J. Ch., 1989, ‘Using Programming Concepts in Deontic Reasoning’. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas, editors, Semantics and Contextual Expression, 117–145, Foris, Dordrecht.
Meyer, J. -J. Ch., 1992, ‘Free Choice Permissions and Ross's Paradox: Internal vs. External Nondeterminism’. In C. P. Dekker and M. Stockhof, editors, Proceedings 8th. Amsterdam Collloquium, 367–380, University of Amsterdam.
Segerberg, K., 1982, ‘A deontic logic of action’, Studia Logica 41, 269–282.
Wieringa, R., J. -J. Ch. Meyer, and H. Weigand, 1989, ‘Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints in knowledge bases’, Data & Knowledge Engineering 4, 157–189.
Wieringa, R., H. fnWeigand, J. -J. Ch. Meyer, and F. Dignum, 1991, ‘The inheritance of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 3, 393–428, Baltzer A. G.
Wieringa, R. J., and J. -J. Ch. Meyer, 1993, ‘Actors, Actions and Initiative in Normative System Specification’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 7, 289–346.
von Wright, G. H., 1951, ‘Deontic logic’, Mind 60, 1–15.
von Wright, G. H., 1968, ‘An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action’, Acta Philosophica Fennica 21, North-Holland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This author gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of Linköping University during revision of this paper.
This research of J.-J.Ch.Meyer and R.J.Wieringa is partially supported by ESPRIT BRWG project No.8319 ’ModelAge’.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dignum, F., Meyer, J.J.C. & Wieringa, R.J. Free choice and contextually permitted actions. Stud Logica 57, 193–220 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00370675
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00370675