A Paraconsistent Multi-agent Framework for Dealing with Normative Conflicts

  • Mathieu Beirlaen
  • Christian Straßer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6814)


In a multi-agent deontic setting, normative conflicts can take a variety of different logical forms. In this paper, we present a very general characterization of such conflicts, including both intra- and inter-agent normative conflicts, conflicts between groups of agents, conflicts between obligations and permissions, and conflicts between contradictory norms. In order to account for the consistent possibility of this wide variety of conflict-types, we present a paraconsistent deontic logic, i.e. a logic that invalidates the classical principle of non-contradiction. Next, we strengthen this logic within the adaptive logics framework for defeasible reasoning. The resulting inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic interprets a given set of norms ‘as consistently as possible’.


Deontic Logic Paraconsistent Logic Nonmonotonic Reasoning Adaptive Logic Accessible World 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E.: Logic of norms and logic of normative propositions. Logique & Analyse 47, 242–268 (1969)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Bulygin, E.: The expressive conception of norms. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, pp. 95–124. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batens, D.: A survey of inconsistency-adaptive logics. In: Batens, D., Priest, G., van Bendegem, J.-P. (eds.) Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, pp. 49–73. Research Studies Press, Kings College Publication, Baldock (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batens, D.: A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Logica Universalis 1, 221–242 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batens, D., Meheus, J.: Recent results by the inconsistency-adaptive labourers. In: Béziau, J.-Y., Carnielli, W., Gabbay, D. (eds.) Handbook of Paraconsistency, pp. 81–99. College Publications, London (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beirlaen, M., Meheus, J., Straßer, C.: An inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic for normative conflicts. Under reviewGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., Van Der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17, 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference On Artificial Intelligence And Law, ICAIL 2003, pp. 109–118. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broersen, J.: Action negation and alternative reductions for dynamic deontic logics. Journal of Applied Logic 2, 153–168 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castañeda, H.-N.: The paradoxes of deontic logic: the simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, pp. 37–85. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Da Costa, N., Carnielli, W.: On paraconsistent deontic logic. Philosophia 16, 293–305 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dignum, F., Royakkers, L.: Collective commitment and obligation. In: Ciampi, C., Marinai, E. (eds.) Proceedings of 5th Int. Conference on Law in the Information Society, Firenze, Italy, pp. 1008–1021 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goble, L.: Multiplex semantics for deontic logic. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5(2), 113–134 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goble, L.: A logic for deontic dilemmas. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 461–483 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, J., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Ten philosophical problems in deontic logic. In: Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H. (eds.) Normative Multi-agent Systems, Germany. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, vol. 07122. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Scholos Dagstuhl (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horty, J.F.: Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(1), 35–66 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horty, J.F.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horty, J.F.: Reasoning with moral conflicts. Noûs 37, 557–605 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kooi, B., Tamminga, A.: Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37, 1–21 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D.J., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44, 167–207 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McConnell, T.: Moral dilemmas. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010) (Summer 2010 edn.)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meheus, J., Beirlaen, M., Van De Putte, F.: Avoiding deontic explosion by contextually restricting aggregation. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS(LNAI), vol. 6181, pp. 148–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer, J.-J.: 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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Priest, G.: In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Routley, R., Plumwood, V.: Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions. In: Priest, G., Routley, R., Norman, J. (eds.) Paraconsistent Logic. Essays on the Inconsistent, pp. 653–702. Philosophia Verlag, München (1989)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shoham, Y.: A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics. In: Ginsberg, M.L. (ed.) Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pp. 227–250. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sinnott-Armstrong, W.: Moral Dilemmas. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Straßer, C.: An adaptive logic framework for conditional obligations and deontic dilemmas. Logic and Logical Philosophy (2010) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Straßer, C.: A deontic logic framework allowing for factual detachment. Journal of Applied Logic 9(1), 61–80 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Straßer, C., Beirlaen, M.: Towards more conflict-tolerant deontic logics by relaxing the interdefinability between obligations and permissions. Under reviewGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Straßer, C., Meheus, J., Beirlaen, M.: Tolerating deontic conflicts by adaptively restricting inheritance. Under reviewGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van der Torre, L., Tan, Y.H.: Two-phase deontic logic. Logique et Analyse (171-172), 411–456 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action. A Logical Enquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1963)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    von Wright, G.H.: On the logic of norms and actions. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, pp. 3–35. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic: a personal view. Ratio Juris 12(1), 26–38 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Beirlaen
    • 1
  • Christian Straßer
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre of Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent UniversityBelgium

Personalised recommendations