Abstract
In this paper, we propose a strong relevant logic approach to solve the problems of deontic logic paradoxes. Since the paradoxes in deontic logic have the same form as the paradoxes in traditional (weak) relevant logic, which have been rejected by our strong relevant logic, we show that a new family of logic, named deontic relevant logics, can be established by introducing deontic operators and relative axioms and inference rules into strong relevant logics such that those deontic logic paradoxes are rejected by deontic relevant logics.
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
G.H. von Wright, “Deontic Logic,” Mind, Vol.60, pp.1–15, 1951.
G.H. von Wright, “An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action,” Acta Philosophica Fennica, Vol.21, 1968.
G.H. von Wright, “On the Logic of Norms and Actions,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), “New studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions, and the Foundations of Ethics,” pp.3–35, D. Reidel, 1981.
L. Åqvist, “Introduction to Deontic Logic and the Theory of Normative Systems,” Bibliopolis, 1987.
L. Åqvist, “Deontic Logic, ” in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), “Handbook of Philosophical Logic,” Vol.2, pp.605–714, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1984.
H. Castañeda, “The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to All of Them in One Fell Swoop,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), “New studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions, and the Foundations of Ethics,” pp.37–85, D. Reidel, 1981.
W. Stelzner, “Relevant Deontic Logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol.21, pp.193–216, 1992.
A.R. Anderson and N.D. Belnap Jr., “Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity,” Vol.1, Princeton University Press, 1975.
A.R. Anderson, N.D. Belnap Jr., and J.M. Dunn, “Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity,” Vol.2, Princeton University Press, 1992.
J.M. Dunn, “Relevance Logic and Entailment,” in D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), “Handbook of Philosophical Logic,” Vol.3, pp.117–224, D.Reidel, 1986.
S. Read, “Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference,” Basil Black-well, 1988.
J. Cheng, “Logical Tool of Knowledge Engineering: Using Entailment Logic rather than Mathematical Logic,” Proc. ACM 19th Annual Computer Science Conference, pp.218–238, 1991.
J. Cheng, “ Rc-A Relevant Logic for Conditional Relation Representation and Reasoning,” Proc. 1st Singapore International Conference on Intelligent Systems, pp.171–176, 1992.
J. Cheng, “The Fundamental Role of Entailment in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning,” Journal of Computing and Information, Vol.2, No.1, pp.853–873, 1996.
T. Tagawa, J. Ohori, J. Cheng, and K. Ushijima, “On the Strong Relevance Principle in Relevant Logics,” Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 387–394, 1998 (in Japanese).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tagawa, T., Cheng, J. (2002). Deontic Relevant Logic: A Strong Relevant Logic Approach to Removing Paradoxes from Deontic Logic. In: Ishizuka, M., Sattar, A. (eds) PRICAI 2002: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2417. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44038-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45683-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive