Abstract
In this chapter we’ll review Krister Segerberg’s approach to a dynamic deontic logic. In particular we will look at the logic that was the result of Segerberg’s attempts to come up with a logic in line with ideas of Von Wright, Alchourrón and Ross. We first treat the basic core, which is a blend of temporal and dynamic logic. Then we add the deontic operators. Finally we briefly discuss an extension discussed by Segerberg, which adds deontic actions to install a new deontic status of actions.
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 subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
As well as impressive for a computer scientist like myself. My own proposal for a dynamic deontic logic [18] was even more ‘meagre’. But I appreciate Segerberg’s view: in philosophy there is a lot of interesting related things that are not covered here such as agency, causality and intentionality.
- 2.
Seeing to it that or stit is in itself a very well-studied subject within philosophical logic, see e.g., [16].
- 3.
I’ve added the latter condition, since I believe it was accidentally omitted in [28]: surely for an until to hold we should look at the future and not at the past.
- 4.
Segerberg also gives a more refined notion. We leave this out here.
- 5.
Perhaps for e.g., Fb (forbidden) the starred version is a bit strange: the prohibition holds until the prohibition has been violated.
- 6.
Interestingly, Segerberg’s framework also seems to be able to cope with the infamous Chisholm paradox (again see for example [17]), the solutions of which are generally held to need nonmonotonic or defeasible logic. Treatment of this issue is beyond the scope of the present chapter.
References
Alchourrón, C., & Bulygin, E. (1971). Normative systems. Vienna: Springer.
Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.
Anderson, A. R. (1967). Some nasty problems in the formalization of ethics. Noûs, 1, 345–360.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). On Brute facts. Analysis, 18, 69–72.
Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., & Meyer, J-J Ch. (2004). Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In A. Lomuscio & D. Nute (Eds.). Proceedings of the Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2004), LNAI(vol. 3065 pp. 43–56 ). Berlin: Springer.
Brown, M. A., & Carmo, J. (Eds.). (1996). Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems: Proceedings of DEON’96. Workshops in Computing(80–97). Berlin: Springer.
Carmo, J., & Jones, A. J. I. (1996). Deontic database constraints, violations and recovery. Studia Logica, 57(1), 139–165.
Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213–261.
Craven, R., & Sergot, M. (2008). Agent strands in the action languages nC+. Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 172–191.
Dignum, F., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., & Meyer, J-J Ch. (2005). Meeting the deadline: Why, when and how. In M.G. Hinchey, J.L. Rash Formal, & W.F. Truszkowski (Eds.), Approaches to Agent-Based Systems (FAABS 2004), Revised Selected Papers, Greenbelt, April 26–27, (2004), LNAI. (Vol. 3228, pp. 30–40). Berlin: Springer.
Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., & R.J. Wieringa, R.J. (1994). A dynamic logic for reasoning about sub-ideal states. In J. Breuker (Ed.), Proceeing of the ECAI’94 Workshop “Artificial Normative Reasoning” (pp. 79–92), Amsterdam.
Emerson, E.A., (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. B. Chapter 16. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Galton, A. (2008). Temporal Logic. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Retrived Sep 9, 2008 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/logic-temporal/
Goble, L., & Meyer, J-J Ch., (Eds.). (2006). Deontic Logic and Artificial Normative Systems: Proceedings of DEON,. (2006). LNAI Vol. 4048. Berlin: Springer.
Harel, D. (1984). Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.). Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 2, pp. 497–604), Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel.
Kracht, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., & Segerberg, K. (2009). The logic of action. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.). The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (2009 Edition),p. 29. Retrived March 31 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-action
McNamara, P. (2010). Deontic logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition) Retrived July 7–9 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/logic-deontic
Meyer, J-J Ch. (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.
Meyer, J-J Ch., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester: Wiley.
Meyer, J-J Ch., Weigand, H., & H. and Wieringa, R.J., (1989). A specification language for static, dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In J. Demetrovics & B. Thalheim (Eds.). Proceedings of the MFDBS 89, Visegrad, Hungary, LNCS (pp. 347–366). Berlin: Springer.
Pnueli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). pp. 46–57.
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press: NewYork.
Segerberg, K. (1990). Validity and satisfaction in imperative logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 31(2), 203–221.
Segerberg, K. (2003). D\(\Delta \)L: a dynamic deontic logic, unpublished.
Segerberg, K. (2006). Trying to meet Rosss challenge. In E. Ballo & M. Franchella (Eds.) Logic and philosophy in Italy: Some trends and perspectives. Essays in honor of corrado mangione on his 75th Birthday (pp. 155–166) Monza, Italy: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.
Segerberg, K. Comments on “Trying to meet Rosss challenge", unpublished.
Segerberg, K. (2007). A blueprint for deontic logic in three (not necessarily easy) steps. In G. Bonanno, J. P. Delgrande, J. Lang, & H. Rott (Eds.), Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents, volume 07351 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.
Segerberg, K. (2009). Blueprint for a dynamic deontic logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 7(4), 388–402.
Tinnemeier, N. A. M., Dastani, M., & Meyer, J.-J. Ch. (2010). Programming Norm Change. In W. van der Hoek, G. Kaminka, Y. Lesprance, M. Luck & S. Sen (Eds.). Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010). (pp. 957–964) Toronto, Canada: IFAAMAS.
van der Meyden, R. (1996). The dynamic logic of permission. Journal of Logic and Computation, 6(3), 465–479.
Wooldridge, M. (2009). An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems (2nd ed.,). John Wiley Sons, Chichester, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meyer, JJ.C. (2014). Dynamic Deontic Logic, Segerberg-Style. In: Trypuz, R. (eds) Krister Segerberg on Logic of Actions. Outstanding Contributions to Logic, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7046-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7046-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7045-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7046-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)