David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 57 (1):73 - 90 (1996)
This paper compares two ways of formalising defeasible deontic reasoning, both based on the view that the issues of conflicting obligations and moral dilemmas should be dealt with from the perspective of nonmonotonic reasoning. The first way is developing a special nonmonotonic logic for deontic statements. This method turns out to have some limitations, for which reason another approach is recommended, viz. combining an already existing nonmonotonic logic with a deontic logic. As an example of this method the language of Reiter's default logic is extended to include modal expressions, after which the argumentation framework in default logic of [20, 22] is used to give a plausible logical analysis of moral dilemmas and prima facie obligations.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Causey (2003). Computational Dialogic Defeasible Reasoning. Argumentation 17 (4):421-450.
Andrew J. I. Jones & Marek Sergot (1992). Deontic Logic in the Representation of Law: Towards a Methodology. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):45-64.
Joeri Engelfriet & Jan Treur (1998). An Interpretation of Default Logic in Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (3):369-388.
Sieghard Beller (2008). Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
Richard Evans (2010). Introducing Exclusion Logic as a Deontic Logic. DEON 2010 10 (1):179-195.
Laurence Fiddick (2006). Adaptive Domains of Deontic Reasoning. Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):105 – 116.
Marcelo E. Coniglio & Newton M. Peron (2009). A Paraconsistentist Approach to Chisholm's Paradox. Principia 13 (3):299-326.
Robert A. Kowalski & Francesca Toni (1996). Abstract Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):275-296.
Henry Prakken & Marek Sergot (1996). Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. Studia Logica 57 (1):91 - 115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #144,874 of 1,098,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #287,052 of 1,098,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?