Abstract
The contemporary development of deontic logic since von Wright has been based on the study of the analogies between normative and alethic modalities. The weakest deontic logic called standard deontic logic (SDL) is the modal system of type KD. Jones and Sergot argued that contrary-to-duty (CTD) reasoning was necessary to represent the legal codes in legal expert systems. This reasoning invites such CTD paradoxes as Chisholm’s Paradox of SDL that is monadic. Hansson’s dyadic deontic logic can avoid CTD paradoxes. But it introduces such dilemmas as the Considerate Assassin’s Dilemma. Prakken and Sergot, and van der Torre and Tan proposed preference-based dyadic deontic logics that can explain away this dilemma. However, these logics face the Fundamental Problem of Intrinsic Preference. The aim of this paper is to propose a new non-modal logical version of complete and decidable preference-based dyadic deontic logic–conditional expected utility maximiser’s deontic logic (CEUMDL) that can avoid Chisholm’s Paradox and explain away the Considerate Assassin’s Dilemma. In the model of CEUMDL we can explain an agent’s preferences in terms of his degrees of belief and degrees of desire via conditional expected utility maximisation, which can avoid the Fundamental Problem of Intrinsic Preference and furnish a solution to the Gambling Problem. We provide CEUMDL with a Domotor-type model that is a kind of measurement-theoretic and decision-theoretic one.
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
Catanẽda, H.-N.: On the Seamantics of the Ought-to-Do. Synthese 21, 449–468 (1970)
Chellas, B.J.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1980)
Chisholm, R.M.: Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic. Analysis 24, 33–36 (1963)
Chisholm, R.M., Sosa, E.: On the Logic of Intrinsically Better. American Philosophical Quarterly 3, 244–249 (1966)
Domotor, Z.: Axiomatisation of Jeffrey Utilities. Synthese 39, 165–210 (1978)
Hansson, B.: An Analysis of Some Deontic Logics. Noûs 3, 373–398 (1969)
Hölder, O.: Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre von Mass. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Mathematisch-Physikaliche Classe 53, 1–64 (1901)
Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford UP, Oxford (2001)
Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: Deontic Logic in the Representation of Law: Towards a Methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 45–64 (1992)
Krantz, D.H., et al.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. I. Academic Press, New York (1971)
Lewis, D.: Semantic Analysis for Dyadic Deontic Logic. In: Stunland, S. (ed.) Logical Theory and Seamtnical Analysis, pp. 1–14. Reidel, Dordrecht (1974)
Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H.: Games and Decisions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1957)
Luce, R.D., et al.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. III. Academic Press, San Diego (1990)
Martin, R.M.: Intension and Decision. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1963)
Mullen, J.D.: Does the Logic of Preference Rest on a Mistake? Metaphilosophy 10, 247–255 (1979)
Naumov, P.: Logic of Subtyping. Theoretical Computer Science 357, 167–185 (2006)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.: Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. Studia Logica 57, 91–115 (1996)
Prakken, H., Sergot, M.J.: Dyadic Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations. In: Nute, D. (ed.) Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 223–262. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)
Roberts, F.S.: Measurement Theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1979)
Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics, Second Revised Edition. Dover, New York (1972)
Segerberg, K.: Qualitative Probability in a Modal Setting. In: Fenstad, J.E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 341–352. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1971)
Suppes, P., et al.: Foundations of Measurement, vol. II. Academic Press, San Diego (1989)
Suzuki, S.: Preference Logic and Its Measurement-Theoretic Semantics. Accepted Paper of 8th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, LOFT 2008 (2008)
Suzuki, S.: Prolegomena to Dynamic Epistemic Preference Logic. In: Hattori, H., et al. (eds.) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 5447, pp. 177–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Van der Torre, L., Tan, Y.-H.: Contrary-to-Duty Reasoning with Preference-Based Dyadic Obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27, 49–78 (1999)
Von Wright, G.H.: Deontic Logic. Mind 60, 1–15 (1951)
Von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference. Edinburgh UP, Edinburgh (1963)
Von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference Reconsidered. Theory and Decision 3, 140–169 (1972)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Suzuki, S. (2009). Measurement-Theoretic Foundation of Preference-Based Dyadic Deontic Logic. In: He, X., Horty, J., Pacuit, E. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5834. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04893-7_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04892-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04893-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)