Noûs 43 (3):450-489 (2009)
|Abstract||On the face of it, normative conflicts are commonplace. Yet standard deontic logic declares them to be logically impossible. That prompts the question, What are the proper principles of normative reasoning if such conflicts are possible? This paper examines several alternatives that have been proposed for a logic of 'ought' that can accommodate normative conflicts, and finds all of them unsatisfactory as measured against three criteria of adequacy. It then introduces a new logic that does meet all three criteria, and so allows for the possibility of genuine normative conflicts.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Re'em Segev (2005). Well-Being and Fairness in the Distribution of Scarce Health Resources. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):231 – 260.
Sven Ove Hansson (1997). Situationist Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (4):423-448.
Luke Robinson (2013). A Dispositional Account of Conflicts of Obligation. Noûs 47 (2):203-228.
Jan-R. Sieckmann (2003). Why Non-Monotonic Logic is Inadequate to Represent Balancing Arguments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):211-219.
Fengkui Ju & Fenrong Liu (2011). Prioritized Imperatives and Normative Conflicts. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 7 (2):35-58.
Giovanni Sartor (1992). Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
Michael J. Almeida (1990). Deontic Logic and the Possibility of Moral Conflict. Erkenntnis 33 (1):57 - 71.
Mathieu Beirlaen, Christian Straßer & Joke Meheus (2013). An Inconsistency-Adaptive Deontic Logic for Normative Conflicts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):285-315.
Lou Goble (2000). Multiplex Semantics for Deontic Logic. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (2):113-134.
Added to index2009-08-27
Total downloads69 ( #15,401 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?