Abstract
In this paper we discuss the role of context and independence in normative reasoning. First, deontic operators — obligations, prohibitions, permissions — referring to the ideal context may conflict with operators referring to a violation (or contrary-to-duty) context. Second, deontic independence is a powerful concept to derive deontic operators from such operators of other violation contexts. These two concepts are used to determine how to proceed once a norm has been violated, a key issue of deontic logic applications in computer science. We also show how violation contexts and deontic independence can be used to give a new analysis of several notorious paradoxes of deontic logic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C.E. Alchourrffon and Bulygin. The expressive conception of norms. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, pages 95–124. D. Reidel, 1981.
L. Åqvist. Systematic frame constants in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 59–77. Kluwer, 1997.
N. Asher and D. Bonevac. Prima facie obligation. Studia Logica, 57:19–45, 1996.
F. Bacchus and A.J. Grove. Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of KR’96, pages 542–552, 1996.
M. Belzer. A logic of deliberation. In Proceedings of the AAAI’86, pages 38–43, 1986.
S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Practical handling of exception-tainted rules and independence information in possibilistic logic. Applied Intelligence, 9:101–127, 1998.
C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the KR’94, pages 75–86, 1994.
J. Carmo and A.J.I. Jones. A new approach to contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 317–344. Kluwer, 1997.
R.M. Chisholm. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24:33–36, 1963.
R. Conte and R. Falcone. ICMAS’96: Norms, obligations, and conventions. AI Magazine, 18,4:145–147, 1997.
D. Dubois, L. Farinas del Cerro, A. Herzig, and H. Prade. Qualitative relevance and independence: a roadmap. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’97, pages 62–67, 1997.
B.S. Firozabadi and L.W.N. van der Torre. Towards a formal analysis of control systems. In Proceedings of the ECAI’98, pages 317–318, 1998.
J.W. Forrester. Gentle murder, or the adverbial Samaritan. Journal of Philosophy, 81:193–197, 1984.
L. Goble. Murder most gentle: the paradox deepens. Philosophical Studies, 64:217–227, 1991.
B. Hansson. An analysis of some deontic logics. In R. Hilpinen, editor, Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 121–147. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.
A.J.I. Jones and I. Pörn. Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic. Synthese, 65:275–290, 1985.
J. Lang. Conditional desires and utilities — an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the ECAI’96, pages 318–322, 1996.
D. Makinson. On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 29–54. IOS Press, 1999.
D. Makinson and L. van der Torre. The logic of reusable propositional output. 1999. Submitted.
L.T. McCarty. Modalities over actions: 1. model theory. In Proceedings of the KR’94, pages 437–448, 1994.
M. Morreau. Prima Facie and seeming duties. Studia Logica, 57:47–71, 1996.
J. Pearl. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the UAI’93, pages 12–20, 1993.
H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica, 57:91–115, 1996.
H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 223–262. Kluwer, 1997.
D. Ross. The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press, 1930.
W. Stelzner. Relevant deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21:193–216, 1992.
Y. Tan and L. van der Torre. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proceedings of the ΔEON’96, Workshops in Computing, pages 216–232. Springer, 1996.
R. Thomason. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics, pages 165–176. D. Reidel, 1981.
L. van der Torre. Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the ECAI’94, pages 371–375, 1994.
L. van der Torre. The logic of reusable propositional output with the fullment constraint. In Labelled Deduction, Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, 1999.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’95, pages 1525–1532, 1995.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In D. Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 79–121. Kluwer, 1997.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL). In Logics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1489, pages 77–91. Springer, 1998.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. The temporal analysis of Chisholm’s paradox. In Proceedings of the AAAI’98, pages 650–655, 1998.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. An update semantics for prima facie obligations. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’98), pages 38–42, 1998.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Contextual deontic logic: violation contexts and factual defeasibility. In M. Cavalcanti, editor, Formal Aspects in Context, Applied Logic Series. Kluwer, 1999.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Rights, duties and commitments between agents. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’99, 1999.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. An update semantics for defeasible obligations. In Proceedings of the UAI’99, 1999.
L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 73–90. IOS Press, 1999.
G.H. von Wright. A new system of deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 105–120. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 1971.
G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic: as I see it. In P. McNamara and H. Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pages 15–25. IOS Press, 1999.
R.J. Wieringa and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Applications of deontic logic in computer science: A concise overview. In J.-J. Meyer and R. Wieringa, editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pages 17–40. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 1993.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
van der Torre, L. (1999). Violation Contexts and Deontic Independence. In: Bouquet, P., Benerecetti, M., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Castellani, F. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1688. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48315-2_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48315-2_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66432-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48315-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive