David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 57 (1):91 - 115 (1996)
We investigate under what conditions contrary-to-duty (CTD) structures lacking temporal and action elements can be given a coherent reading. We argue, contrary to some recent proposals, that CTD is not an instance of defeasible reasoning, and that methods of nonmonotonic logics are inadequate since they are unable to distinguish between defeasibility and violation of primary obligations. We propose a semantic framework based on the idea that primary and CTD obligations are obligations of different kinds: a CTD obligation pertains to, or pre-supposes, a certain context in which a primary obligation is already violated. This framework is presented initially as an extension of Standard Deontic Logic (SDL), a normal modal logic of type KD, and is illustrated by application to a series of examples. The concluding section is concerned with some resemblances between CTD and defeasible reasoning. We show first that the SDL-based framework contains a flaw and must be adjusted. A discussion of possible adjustments, including an alternative treatment in terms of a preference-based semantics, reveals difficulties that are reminiscent of problems in defeasible reasoning and intensional accounts of defeasible conditionals.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
M. Abraham, D. M. Gabbay & U. Schild (2011). Obligations and Prohibitions in Talmudic Deontic Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):117-148.
Mathijs Boer, Dov M. Gabbay, Xavier Parent & Marija Slavkovic (2012). Two Dimensional Standard Deontic Logic [Including a Detailed Analysis of the 1985 Jones–Pörn Deontic Logic System]. Synthese 187 (2):623-660.
Thomas Ågotnes, Wiebe Van Der Hoek, Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra & Michael Wooldridge (2009). Multi-Modal CTL: Completeness, Complexity, and an Application. Studia Logica 92 (1):1 - 26.
Tina Balke, Marina De Vos & Julian Padget (2013). I-ABM: Combining Institutional Frameworks and Agent-Based Modelling for the Design of Enforcement Policies. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (4):371-398.
Mathijs de Boer, Dov M. Gabbay, Xavier Parent & Marija Slavkovic (2012). Two Dimensional Standard Deontic Logic [Including a Detailed Analysis of the 1985 Jones–Pörn Deontic Logic System]. Synthese 187 (2):623-660.
Similar books and articles
Timothy R. Colburn (1991). Defeasible Reasoning and Logic Programming. Minds and Machines 1 (4):417-436.
Nellie Wieland (2011). Parental Obligation. Utilitas 23 (03):249-267.
Dov M. Gabbay & Karl Schlechta (2010). A Theory of Hierarchical Consequence and Conditionals. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (1):3-32.
Bill Wringe (2010). Global Obligations and the Agency Objection. Ratio 23 (2):217-231.
Lennart Åqvist (1967). Good Samaritans, Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives, and Epistemic Obligations. Noûs 1 (4):361-379.
Frederick Maier & Donald Nute (2010). Well-Founded Semantics for Defeasible Logic. Synthese 176 (2):243 - 274.
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Mark A. Brown (1996). A Logic of Comparative Obligation. Studia Logica 57 (1):117 - 137.
Henry Prakken (1996). Two Approaches to the Formalisation of Defeasible Deontic Reasoning. Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #149,661 of 1,692,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #184,284 of 1,692,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?