Skip to main content

Case Classification, Similarities, Spaces of Reasons, and Coherences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 107))

Abstract

A simple recurrent artificial neural network (ANN) is used to classify situations as permissible or impermissible. The trained ANN can be understood as having set up a similarity space of cases at the level of its internal or hidden units. An analysis of the network’s internal representations is undertaken using a new visualization technique for state space approaches to understanding similarity. Insights from the literature on moral philosophy pertaining to contributory standards will be used to interpret the state space set up by the ANN as being structured by implicit reasons. The ANN, on its own, is not capable of explicitly representing or offering reasons to itself or others. That said, the low level similarity space set up by the network could be made available to higher order processes that exploit it for case-based reasoning. It is argued that for normative purposes, similarity could be seen as a contributor to procedural coherence in case-based reasoning and local forms of substantive coherence, but not to global forms of coherence given the computational complexity of managing those more ambitious forms of coherence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, J. 1999. Can a particularist learn the difference between right and wrong? In Proceedings from the 20th world congress of philosophy, Ethics, vol. 1, ed. K. Brinkmann. Bowling Green: Philosophy Documentation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, J. 2000. The particularist’s progress. In Moral particularism, ed. B. Hooker and M. Little, 130–156. Oxford: Clarendon-Oxford press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, J. 2004. Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. 2006. Particularism and the classification and reclassification of moral cases. IEEE Intelligent Systems Magazine 21: 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. 2007. Computation, coherence, and ethical reasoning. Minds and Machines 17: 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. 2010. Particularism, analogy, and moral cognition. Minds and Machines 20: 385–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. 2011. Computational neural modeling and the philosophy of ethics. In Machine ethics, ed. M. Anderson and S. Anderson, 316–334. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. (forthcoming). Moral case classification and the nonlocality of reasons. Topoi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, F., P. Petit, and M. Smith. 2000. Ethical particularism and patterns. In Moral particularism, ed. B. Hooker and M. Little, 79–99. Oxford: Clarendon-Oxford press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, A., and G. Cottrell. 2006. Churchland on connectionism. In Paul Churchland, ed. B.L. Keeley, 113–153. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A.B., and D. Gentner. 2005. Nonintentional similarity processing. In The new unconscious, eds. T. Hassin, J. Bargh, and J. Uleman, 107–137. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeever, S., and M. Ridge. 2006. Principled ethics: Generalism as a regulative ideal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W. 1963. Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In Science, perception, and reality, ed. W. Sellars, 1–40. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1): 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the Shared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing Network (SHARCNet) for a digital humanities fellowship that made this research possible. The fellowship included funding for course releases and programming support. Special thanks go to SHARCNet programmer Weiguang Guan for coding the visualization software used to render (Figs. 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3). For comments and suggestions, thanks also go out to Michał Araszkiewicz and Jaromir Šavelka, organizers of the ICAIL 2011 workshop on Coherence, as well as Kevin Ashley, Thorne McCarty, and other workshop participants for their comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcello Guarini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guarini, M. (2013). Case Classification, Similarities, Spaces of Reasons, and Coherences. In: Araszkiewicz, M., Ĺ avelka, J. (eds) Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 107. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6110-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics