Responsibility in Infinite Games

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 65 (4):415-430 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There are two distinct forms of responsibility that can be found in literature: counterfactual responsibility and responsibility for “seeing to it that.” It has been previously observed that, in the case of strategic games, the counterfactual form of responsibility can be defined through responsibility for “seeing to it that,” but not the other way around. We consider these two forms of responsibility in the case of infinite extensive form games. The main technical result is that, in this new setting, neither of the two forms of responsibility can be defined through the other. Some preliminary results for finite extensive form games are also given.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 105,925

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-11-16

Downloads
12 (#1,460,349)

6 months
12 (#291,475)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Pavel Naumov
University of Southampton

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1969 - Journal of Philosophy 66 (23):829-839.
Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry.Georg Henrik von Wright - 1963 - New York, NY, USA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Action Types in Stit Semantics.John Horty & Eric Pacuit - 2017 - Review of Symbolic Logic 10 (4):617-637.
The way of the agent.Nuel Belnap & Michael Perloff - 1992 - Studia Logica 51 (3-4):463 - 484.

View all 11 references / Add more references