David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (2):237 - 252 (1975)
Recently, Bengt Hansson presented a paper about dyadic deontic logic,2 criticizing some purely axiomatic systems of dyadic deontic logic and proposing three purely semantical systems of dyadic deontic logic which he confidently called dyadic standard systems of deontic logic (DSDL1–3). Here I shall discuss the third by far most interesting system DSDL3 which is operating with preference relations. First, I shall describe this semantical system (Sections 1.1–1.3). Then I shall give an axiomatic system (Section 1.4) which is proved to be correct (Section 2) and complete (Section 3) with respect to Hansson's semantics. Finally, in face of these results Hansson's semantics will be discussed from a more intuitive standpoint. After emphasizing its intuitive attractiveness (Section 4.1) I will show that two objections often discussed in connection with preference relations do not apply to it (Section 4.2 and 4.3); more precisely, I will show that the connectedness condition for preference relations can be dropped and that, in a sense, it is not necessary to compare two possible worlds differing in infinitely many respects. (What exactly is meant by this, will become clear later on.) Yet there is a third objection to Hansson's semantics which points to a real intuitive inadequacy of DSDL3. A way of removing this inadequacy, which corresponds to Hansson's own intuitions as well as to familiar metaethical views, is suggested, but not technically realized (Section 4.4). In the last section (section 4.5) I shall briefly show that DSDL3 is decidable, as expected
|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
Bengt Hansson (1968). Choice Structures and Preference Relations. Synthese 18 (4):443 - 458.
Jaakko Hintikka (1971). Some Main Problems of Deontic Logic. In Risto Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Sold and Distributed in the U.S.A. And Canada by Kluwer Boston 59-104.
Citations of this work BETA
Xavier Parent (2014). Maximality Vs. Optimality in Dyadic Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (6):1101-1128.
Jörg Hansen (2006). Deontic Logics for Prioritized Imperatives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):1-34.
Jennifer Carr (2014). The If P, Ought P Problem. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (4):555-583.
Johan Benthem, Davide Grossi & Fenrong Liu (2014). Priority Structures in Deontic Logic. Theoria 80 (2):116-152.
Lauri Carlson (1994). Logic for Dialogue Games. Synthese 99 (3):377 - 415.
Similar books and articles
Bengt Hansson (1969). An Analysis of Some Deontic Logics. Noûs 3 (4):373-398.
Sven Ove Hansson (1990). Preference-Based Deontic Logic (PDL). Journal of Philosophical Logic 19 (1):75 - 93.
Lennart Åqvist (1986). Some Results on Dyadic Deontic Logic and the Logic of Preference. Synthese 66 (1):95 - 110.
David Lewis (1974). Semantic Analyses for Dyadic Deontic Logic. In Sören Stenlund (ed.), Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis: Essays Dedicated to Stig Kanger on His Fiftieth Birthday. Reidel 1-14.
Richard Evans (2010). Introducing Exclusion Logic as a Deontic Logic. DEON 2010 10 (1):179-195.
Edwin D. Mares (1994). Why We Need a Relevant Theory of Conditionals. Topoi 13 (1):31-36.
Sven Ove Hansson (1997). Situationist Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (4):423-448.
Michael J. Almeida (1990). Deontic Logic and the Possibility of Moral Conflict. Erkenntnis 33 (1):57 - 71.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #273,738 of 1,790,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #433,815 of 1,790,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?