Abstract
The open reading of permission (OR) states that an action α is permitted iff every execution of α is normatively OK. Free Choice Permission (FCP) is the notorious principle turning permission of disjunction into conjunction of permissions P(ϕ ∨ ψ) → Pϕ ∧ Pψ. We start by giving a first-order logic version of OR that defines permission of action types in terms of the legality of action tokens. We prove that implies FCP. Given that FCP has been heavily criticized, this seems like bad news for OR. We disagree. We observe that this implication relies on a debatable principle involving disjunctive actions. We proceed to present alternative views of disjunctive actions which violate this principle, and which so block the undesired implication. So one can have the open reading without free choice and, as we argue towards the end of the paper, there are philosophical reasons why one should.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abramsky, S.: Computational interpretations of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 111(1), 3–57 (1993)
Anglberger, A., Gratzl, N., Roy, O.: The logic of obligations as weakest permissions (2013) (manuscript)
Asher, N., Pelletier, F.: Generics and defaults. In: van Bentham, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language. Elsevier (1997)
Asudeh, A.: Linear logic, linguistic resource sensitivity and resumption, eSSLLI (2006)
Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the future: Agents and choice in our indeterminist world (2001)
Broersen, J.: Action negation and alternative reductions for dynamic deontic logics. Journal of Applied Logic 2, 153–168 (2004)
Di Cosmo, R., Miller, D.: Linear logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2010 edn. (2010)
Dignum, F., Meyer, J.J., Wieringa, R.: Free choice and contextually permitted actions. Studia Logica 57(1), 193–220 (1996)
Dignum, F., Meyer, J.J.: Negations of transactions and their use in the specification of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In: Semantics for Concurrency. Workshops in Computing, pp. 61–80. Springer, London (1990)
Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50(1), 1–102 (1987)
Girard, J.Y.: Linear logic: Its syntax and semantics. In: Girard, J.Y., Lafont, Y., Regnier, L. (eds.) Advances in Linear Logic, vol. 222. Cambridge University Press (1995)
Hansson, S.: The varieties of permissions. In: Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, vol. 1, College Publication (2013)
Van Benthem, J.: Language in Action: categories, lambdas and dynamic logic. MIT Press (1995)
Joyce, J.M.: Regret and instability in causal decision theory. Synthese 187(1), 123–145 (2012)
Kracht, M., Wolter, F.: Normal monomodal logics can simulate all others. Journal Symbolic Logic 64(1), 99–138 (1999)
Makinson, D.: Stenius’ approach to disjunctive permission. Theoria 50, 138–147 (1984)
Makinson, D.: Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic. College Publications (2005)
McCarthy, J.: Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In: IJCAI, vol. 77, pp. 1038–1044 (1977)
McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2010 edn. (2010)
Meyer, J.J.C.: A different approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29, 109–136 (1988)
Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A course in game theory. MIT Press (1994)
Roy, O., Anglberger, A.J.J., Gratzl, N.: The logic of obligation as weakest permission. In: Ågotnes, T., Broersen, J., Elgesem, D. (eds.) DEON 2012. LNCS, vol. 7393, pp. 139–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Schurz, G.: Relevant Deduction: From Solving Paradoxes Towards a General Theory. Erkenntnis 35, 391–437 (1991)
Schurz, G., Weingartner, P.: Paradoxes solved by simple relevance criteria. Logique et Analyse 113, 3–40 (1986)
Simons, M.: Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3), 271–316 (2005)
Trypuz, R., Kulicki, P.: On deontic action logics based on boolean algebra. Journal of Logic and Computation (2013) (forthcoming)
von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action - A Logical Enquiry. Routledge (1963)
van Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North-Holland Publishing Company (1968)
Zimmermann, T.: Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4), 255–290 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Anglberger, A.J.J., Dong, H., Roy, O. (2014). Open Reading without Free Choice. In: Cariani, F., Grossi, D., Meheus, J., Parent, X. (eds) Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. DEON 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8554. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08615-6_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08614-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08615-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)