Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When a conflict of duties arises, a resolution is often sought by use of an ordering of priority or importance. This paper examines how such a conflict resolution works, compares mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature, and gives preference to one developed by Brewka and Nebel. I distinguish between two cases – that some conflicts may remain unresolved, and that a priority ordering can be determined that resolves all – and provide semantics and axiomatic systems for accordingly defined dyadic deontic operators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alchourrón C. E. (1986). Conditionality and the Representation of Legal Norms. In: Martino, A. A. and Socci Natali, F. (eds) Automated Analysis of Legal Texts: Edited Versions of selected papers from the Second International Conference on “Logic, Informatics, Law’, Florence, Italy, September 1985, pp 173–186. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C. E. and Bulygin, E. The Expressive Conception of Norms, in Hilpinen, R. (1981). New Studies in Deontic Logic. Reidel: Dordrecht, 95–124

  • Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D. Hierarchies of Regulations and Their Logic, in Hilpinen, R. (1981). New Studies in Deontic Logic. Reidel: Dordrecht 95–124, 125–148

  • Alchourrón C. E. and Makinson D. (1985). On the Logic of Theory Change: Safe Contraction. Studia Logica 44: 405–422

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Åqvist L. (1986). Some Results on Dyadic Deontic Logic and the Logic of Preference. Synthese 66: 95–110

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brewka G.(1989) Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoninig, in Sridharan, N. S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCA1–89, Detroit, Michigan, USA, August 20–25, 1989, San Mateo, Calif.: Kaufmann, 1043–1048

  • Brewka G. (1991). Belief Revision in a Framework for Default Reasoning. In: Fuhrmann, A. and Morreau, M. (eds) The Logic of Theory Change, Workshop, Konstanz, Germany, October 13–15, 1989, pp 206–222. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka G. and Eiter T. (1999). Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs. Artificial Intelligence 109: 297–356

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brink D. O. (1994). Moral Conflict and Its Structure. Philosophical Review 103: 215–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehige C. (1994). The Limit Assumption in Deontic (and Prohairetic) Logic. In: Meggle, G. and Wessels, U. (eds) Analyomen 1: Proceedings of the 1st Conference “Perspectives in Analytical Philosophy”, Saarbrücken 1991, pp 42–56. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (1984). Epistemic Importance and Minimal Changes of Belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62: 136–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goble, L. (2005). A Logic for Deontic Dilemmas, Journal of Applied Logic: 961–983

  • Hage, J. C. (1991). Monological Reason Based Reasoning, in Breuker, J. A., De Mulder, R. V., and Hage, J. C., Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Model-based Legal Reasoning (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 1991, Lelystad, December 1991), 77–91.

  • Hage J. C. (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J. (2001). Sets, Sentences and Some Logics about Imperatives. Fundamenta Informaticae 48: 205–226

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. (2004) Problems and Results for Logics about Imperatives, Journal of Applied logic, 36–61

  • Hansen, J. (2005) Conflicting Imperatives and Dyadic Deontic Logic, Journal of Applied Logic, 484–511

  • Hansson, B. (1969). An Analysis of Some Deontic Logics. Nôus 3: 373–398, reprinted in Hilpinen, R. (1971). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel: Dordrecht, 121–147.

  • Hare R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty J. F. (1997). Nonmonotonic Foundations for Deontic Logic. In: Nute, D. (eds) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp 17–44. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty J. F. (2003). Reasoning with Moral Conflicts. Noûs 37: 557–605

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Iwin A. A. (1972). Grundprobleme der deontischen Logik. In: Wessel, H. (eds) Quantoren–Modalitäten–Paradoxien, pp 402–522. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanger, S. (1957). New Foundations for Ethical Theory: Part 1”, duplic., 42 p., reprinted in Hilpinen, R. (1971). Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel: Dordrecht, 36–58.

  • Kraus S., Lehmann D. and Magidor M. (1990). Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics. Artificial Intelligence 44: 167–207

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1981). Ordering Semantics and Premise Semantics for Counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 217–234

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson D. (2000). Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29: 383–408

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson D. (2001). Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30: 155–185

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus R. B. (1980). Moral Dilemmas and Consistency. Journal of Philosophy 77: 121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara P. (1995). The Confinement Problem: How to Terminate Your Mom With Her Trust. Analysis 55: 310–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel B. (1991). Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches,. In: Allen, J. A., Fikes, R. and Sandewall, E. (eds) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, KR ’91, Cambridge, MA, April 1991, pp 417–428. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  • Nebel B. (1992). Syntax-Based Approaches to Belief Revision. In: Gärdenfors, P. (eds) Belief Revision, pp 52–88. University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. and Sartor G. (1997). Argument-based Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N. (1964). Hypothetical Reasoning. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Rintanen J. (1994). Prioritized Autoepistemic Logic. In: MacNish, C., Pearce, D. and Pereira, L. M. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence, European Workshop, JELIA ’94, York, September 1994, Proceedings, pp 232–246. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott H. (1993). Belief Contraction in the Context of the General Theory of Rational Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 58: 1426–1450

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M. (1992). Representing Defaults as Sentences with Reduced Priority. In: Nebel, B., Rich, C. and Swartout, W. (eds) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference, KR ’92, Cambridge, MA, October 1992, pp 649–660. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakama C. and Inoue K. (1996). Representing Priorities in Logic Programs. In: Maher, M. (eds) Joint International Conference and Syposium on Logic Programming JICSLP 1996, Bonn, September 1996, pp 82–96. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. (1991). Inconsistency and Legal Reasoning, in Breuker, J. A., De Mulder, R. V., and Hage, J. C., Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Model-based Legal Reasoning (Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based Systems JURIX 1991, Lelystad, December 1991), 92–112

  • Sartor, G. (2005) Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to the Law, vol. 5 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, Springer: Dordrecht.

  • Searle J. (1980). Prima-facie Obligations. In: Straaten, Z. v. (eds) Philosophical Subjects: Essays presented to P. F. Strawson, pp 238–259. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W. (1975). An Analysis of Hansson’s Dyadic Deontic Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 4: 237–252

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziemba Z. (1971). Deontic Syllogistics. Studia Logica 28: 139–159

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Philosophie, Universität Leipzig, Beethovenstraβe 15, D-04107, Leipzig, Germany

    Jörg Hansen

Authors
  1. Jörg Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Hansen.

Additional information

A preliminary version was presented to the working group “Law and logic’ of the XXII. World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (IVR 2005), 24–29 May 2005, Granada, Spain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansen, J. Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives. Artif Intell Law 14, 1–34 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-005-5081-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-005-5081-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation