Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T22:12:19.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON KNOWLEDGE AND OBLIGATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2012

Can Başķent ,
Loes Olde Loohuis  and
Rohit Parikh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a brief overview of several formal frameworks concerning the relation between knowledge (or belief) on the one hand, and obligation (or permission) on the other. We discuss the paradox of the knower, knowledge based obligation, knowingly doing, deontic dynamic epistemology, descriptive obligations, and responsibilities as dynamic epistemology.

Type
Epistemic Logic and its Broader Applications
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Special Issue 2: Formal Social Epistemology, in memory of Horacio Arló-Costa , June 2012 , pp. 171 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alston, William P. 1988. ‘The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 257–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åqvist, Lennart. 1967. ‘Good Samaritans, Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives, and Epistemic Obligations.’ Noûs, 1(4): 361–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aucher, Guillaume, Boella, Guido, and van der Torre, Leendert. 2010. ‘Prescriptive and Descriptive Obligations in Dynamic Epistemic Deontic Logic.’ In AI Approach to the COmplexity of Legal Systems (AICOL 2010), LNAI vol. 6237, pp. 150–61. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Balbiani, Philippe, van Ditmarsch, Hans, and Seban, Pablo 2011. ‘Reasoning about Permitted Announcements.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(4): 445–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balbiani, Philippe, van Ditmarsch, Hans, and Seban, Pablo. 2009. ‘Raisonnements sur la permission de dire.’ In Cinquièmes journées francophones modèles formels de l'interaction. Rennes: L'Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Başķent, Can. Forthcoming. ‘Public Announcement Logic in Geometric Frameworks’. Fundamenta Infomaticae.Google Scholar
Belnap, Nuel, Perloff, Michael, and Xu, Ming. 2001. Facing the Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul A. 2008. ‘Epistemic Rule.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(9): 472–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence, and Sosa, Ernest. 2003. Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broersen, Jan. 2008. ‘A Logical Analysis of the Interaction between “Obligation–to-Do” and “Knowingly Doing”.’ Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5076: 140–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neri. 1988. ‘Knowledge and Epistemic Obligation.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 211–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Pascal. 2007. ‘Epistemic Norms and Rationality.’ In Strawinski, W. (ed.), Festschrift for Jacek Jadacki, pp. 359–74. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Fagin, Ronald, Halpern, Joseph Y., Moses, Yoram, and Vardi, Moshe Y. 1996. Reasoning about Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1990. ‘A Simpler Solution to the Paradoxes of Deontic Logic.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 4: 309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard. 1988. ‘Epistemic Obligations.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Conee, Earl. 2001. ‘Internalism Defended.’ In Kornblith, H. (ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism, pp. 231–60. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gendler, Tamar Szabó. 2008. ‘Alief and Belief.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(10): 634–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerbrandy, Jelle. 1999. Bisimulations on Planet Kripke. PhD thesis, Institute of Logic, Language and Computation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Glasgow, Janice, Macewen, Glenn, and Panangaden, . 1992. ‘A Logic for Reasoning about Security.’ ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 10(3): 226–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goble, L. 1990. ‘A Logic of Good, Should, and Would.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 105(10): 570–90.Google Scholar
Halpern, Joseph Y., and Moses, Yoram. 1990. ‘Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment.’ Journal of ACM, 37(3): 549–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and Stanley, Jason. 2008. ‘Knowledge and Action.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(10): 570–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, John. 1983. ‘Doxastic Agency.’ Philosophical Studies, 43(3): 355–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hipinem, Risto. 2001. ‘Deontic Logic.’ In Gable, Lou (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, vol. 4, pp. 159–82. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horty, John F. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 2008. ‘Ungrounded Reason.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(9): 453–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, Joris. 2008. ‘Need to Know: Questions and the Paradox of Epistemic Obligation.’ Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5076: 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2001. Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lima, Tiago de, Royakkers, Lambér, and Dignum, Frank. 2010. ‘A Logic for Reasoning about Responsibility.’ Logic Journal of IGPL, 18(1): 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomuscio, Alessio, and Sergot, Marek. 2003. ‘Deontic Interpreted Systems.’ Studia Logica, 75(1): 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loohuis, Loes Olde. 2009. ‘Obligations in a Responsible World.’ In He, X., Horty, John F. and Pacuit, Eric (eds), Logic, Rationality and interaction (LORI), LNCS vol. 5834: 251–62. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacuit, Eric. 2007. ‘Some Comments on History Based Structures.’ Journal of Applied Logic, 5(4): 613–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacuit, Eric, Parikh, Rohit, and Cogan, Eva. 2006. ‘The Logic of Knowledge Based Obligation.’ Synthese, 149(2): 311–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parikh, Rohit. 2008. ‘Sentences, Belief and Logical Omniscience, or What does Induction Tell us?’ Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(4): 459–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parikh, Rohit, and Ramanujam, Ram. 2003. ‘A Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages.’ Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12(4): 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1988. ‘Chisholmian Internalism.’ In Austin, D. F. (ed.) Philosophical Analysis, pp. 27–51. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Plaza, Jan A. 1989. ‘Logic of Public Communication.’ In Emrich, M. L., Pfeifer, M. S., Hadzikadic, M., and Ras, Z. W. (eds), 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 201–16. Oakridge: Oakridge National Laboratory, ORNL/DSRD-24.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1987. ‘Epistemic Norms.’ Synthese, 71(1): 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter 1997. ‘The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle.’ New Internationalist, 289 (April): 28–30.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest. 1999. ‘Skepticism and the Internal/External Divide.’ In Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, pp. 145–57. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Unger, Peter. 1996. Living High and Letting Die. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, Johan, and Gheerbrant, Amelie. 2010. ‘Game Solution, Epistemic Dynamics and Fixed-Point Logics.’ Fundamenta Infomaticae, 100(1–4): 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ditmarsch, Hans, van der Hoek, Wiebe, and Kooi, Barteld. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Weatherson, Brian. 2007. ‘Deontology and Descartes' Demon.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(9): 540–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Crispin. 2008. ‘Internal-External: Doxastic Norms and the Defusing of Skeptical Paradox.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105(9): 501–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar