Advertisement

Blame it on me

  • Lambèr RoyakkersEmail author
  • Jesse Hughes
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a formalisation of the main ideas of the work of Van de Poel on responsibility. Using the basic concepts through which the meanings of responsibility are defined, we construct a logic which enables to express sentences like “individual i is accountable for φ”, “individual i is blameworthy for φ” and “individual i has the obligation to see to it that φ”. This formalization clarifies the definitions of responsibility given by Van de Poel and highlights their differences and similarities. It also helps to assess the consistency of the formalisation of responsibility, not only by showing that definitions are not inconsistent, but also by providing a formal demonstration of the relation between three main meanings of responsibility (accountability, blameworthiness, and obligation). The formal account can be used to derive new properties of the concepts. With the help of the formalisation, we detect the occurrence of the problem of many hands (PMH) by defining a logical framework for reasoning about collective and individual responsibility. This logic extends the Coalition Epistemic Dynamic Logic (CEDL) by adding a notion of group knowledge (and generalize the definitions of individual responsibility to groups of agents), agent ability and knowing how to its semantics.

Keywords

Responsibility Coalition epistemic logic Problem of many hands Collective agency 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T. (2006). Action and knowledge in alternating-time temporal logic. Synthese, 149(2), 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ågotnes, T., & Alechina, N. (2011). Reasoning about joint action and coalitional ability in k n with intersection. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Logic in Multi-agent Systems, CLIMA’11 (pp. 139–156). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-22358-7. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=?2044543.2044557.
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T. A., Kupferman, O. (2002). Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 5(49), 672–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, A. R., & Moore, O. K. (1957). The formal analysis of normative concepts. The American Sociological Review, 22, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aristotle (2000) Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boudou, J., & Lorini, E. (2018). Concurrent game structures for temporal STIT logic. In André, E., Koenig, S., Dastani, M., Sukthankar, G. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2018 (pp. 381–389). Stockholm. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Richland, SC, USA / ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=?3237443.
  8. 8.
    Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility. Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulling, N., & Jamroga, W.J. (2014). Comparing variants of strategic ability: How uncertainty and memory influence general properties of games. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28 (3), 474–518. ISSN 1387-2532.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-013-9231-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chockler, H., & Halpern, J. Y. (2004). Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    d’Altan, P., Meyer, J. -J. C. h., Wieringa, R. (1996). An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 77–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Lima, T., & Royakkers, L.M.M. (2015). A formalisation of moral responsibility and the problem of many hands. In van de Poel, I. R., Royakkers, L. M. M., Zwart, S. D. (Eds.) Moral responsibility and the Problem of Many Hands (pp. 93–130): Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Lima, T., Royakkers, L. M. M., Dignum, F. (2010). A logic for reasoning about responsibility. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18(1), 99–117.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzp073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker, K., & Lesser, V. (1995). Designing a familly of coordination algorithms. In Lesser, V. (Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95) (pp. 73–80): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2007). A logic for agent organizations. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Formal Approaches to Multi-Agent Systems (FAMAS).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duijf, H., & Broersen, J. (July 2016). Representing Strategies. ArXiv e-prints.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J, Moses, Y., Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldman, A. I. (2009). Social epistemology: Theory and applications. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, (64), 1–18.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goodin, R. E. (1986). Responsibilities. The Philosophical Quarterly, 42(36), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grossi, D., Royakkers, L., Dignum, F. (2007). Organizational structure and responsibility: An analysis in a dynamic logic of organized collective agency. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15, 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J. (1984). Dynamic logic. In Gabbay, D., & Guenther, F. (Eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume II – Extensions of Classical Logic (pp. 497–604): D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herzig, A., & Lorini, E. (2010). A dynamic logic of agency i Stit, capabilities and powers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 19(1), 89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herzig, A., Lang, J., Longin, D., Polacsek, T. (2000). A logic for planning under partial observability. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 768–773): AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Walther, D. (2013). Reasoning about actions meets strategic logics. In International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction (pp. 162–175): Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jamroga, W. J. (2003). Some remarks on alternating temporal epistemic logic. In Proceedings of formal approaches to multi-agent systems (FAMAS 2003) (pp. 133–140).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorini, E. (2010). A dynamic logic of agency ii: Deterministic dla, coalition logic, and game theory. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 19(3), 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D., Mayor, E. (2014). A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(6), 1313–1339.  https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/ext072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyer, J. -J. C. h. (1988). A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29(1), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer, J. -J. C. h., & Wieringa, R. (1993). Editors. Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller, S. (2007). Against the collective moral autonomy thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38(3), 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nute, D. (1997). Defeasible deontic logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Osborne, J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory the. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pauly, M. (2001). Logic for Social Software. PhD Thesis, ILLC University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pauly, M. (2002). A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Royakkers, L. M. M. (1998). Extending deontic logics for the formalisation of legal rules. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Santos, F., & Carmo, J. (1996). Indirect action, influence and responsibility. In Brown, M. A., Carmo, J., van Rijsbergen, C. J. (Eds.) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems: Workshops in Computing series. Springer.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility and public officials. American Political Science Review, 74, 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van de Poel, I.R. (2011). The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In Vincent, N., van de Poel, I. R., van den Hoven, J. (Eds.) Moral responsibility. Beyond Free Will and Determinism (pp. 37–52): Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van de Poel, I.R. (2015). Moral responsibility. In van de Poel, I. R., Royakkers, L. M. M., Zwart, S. D. (Eds.) Moral responsibility and the Problem of Many Hands (pp. 12–49). Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Fraassen, B.C. (1973). The logic of conditional obligation. In Bunge, M. (Ed.) Exact Philosophy (pp. 151–172). D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wieringa, R. J., & Meyer, J. -J. C. h. (1993). Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 7, 289–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Innovation SciencesEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentBentley UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations