Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Formal Aspects of Context pp 143–160Cite as

Contextual Deontic Logic: Violation Contexts and Factual Defeasibility

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Applied Logic Series ((APLS,volume 20))

Abstract

It is well-known in deontic logic that there are striking similarities between deontic reasoning and contextual reasoning. For example, in temporal deontic reasoning Thomason [1981] makes a distinction between the context of deliberation and the context of justification to distinguish a (deliberative) ought that implies ‘practical-temporal can’ from a (judgmental) ought that does not imply ‘practical-temporal can.’ The truth values of deontic sentences are not only time-dependent in the same, familiar way that the truth values of all tensed sentences are time-dependent, but they are also dependent of a set of choices or future options that varies as a function of time. The context of deliberation is the set of choices when you are looking for practical advice, whereas the context of justification is the set of choices for someone who is judging you. The following example illustrates the distinction between the two contexts.

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

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 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourr6n, C., and Bulygin. 1981. The expressive conception of norms. In Hilpinen, R., ed., New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics. D. Reidel. 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourr6n, C. 1993. Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals. In Meyer, J.-J., and Wieringa, R., eds., Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons. 43–84.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belzer, M. 1986. A logic of deliberation. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’86), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C. 1994. Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artificial Intelligence 68: 87–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Castaneda, H. 1981. 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: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics. D.Reidel Publishing company. 37–85.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chellas, B. 1974. Conditional obligation. In Stunland, S., ed., Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 23–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Chisholm, R. 1963. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis 24: 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feldmann, F. 1990. A simpler solution to the paradoxes of deontic logic. In Tomberlin, J., ed., Philosophical perspectives 4: Action theory and Philosophy of Mind. Atascadero: Ridgview.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forrester, J. 1984. Gentle murder, or the adverbial Samaritan. Journal of Philosophy 81: 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gabbay, 1996] Gabbay, D. 1996. Labelled Deductive Systems,volume 1. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hansson, B. 1971. An analysis of some deontic logics. In Hilpinen, R., ed., Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Horty, 1994] Horty, J. 1994. Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 35–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Horty, J. 1997. Nonmonotonic foundations for deontic logic. In Nute, D., ed., Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer. 17–44.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis, D. 1974. Semantic analysis for dyadic deontic logic. In Stunland, S., ed., Logical Theory and Semantical Analysis. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Loewer, B., and Belzer, M. 1983. Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese 54: 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Makinson, D. 1999. On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In McNamara, P., and Pra d en, H., eds., Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McCarty, L. 1994. Defeasible deontic reasoning. Fundamenta Informaticae 21: 125148.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Prakken, H., and Sergot, M. 1996. Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica 57: 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Prakken, H., and Sergot, M. 1997. Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-toduty obligations. In Nute, D., ed., Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer. 223–262.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132. [Ross, 1930] Ross, D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ryu, Y., and Lee, R. 1993. Defeasible deontic reasoning: A logic programming model. In Meyer, J.-J., and Wieringa, R., eds., Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons. 225–241.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tan and van der Torre, 1996] Tan, Y.-H., and van der Torre, L. 1996. How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preferences. In Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proceedings of the DEON’96. Workshops in Computing,216–232. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomason, R. 1981. Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. In Hilpinen, R., ed., New Studies in Deontic Logic: Norms, Actions and the Foundations of Ethics. D. Reidel. 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tomberlin, J. 1981. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and conditional obligation. Noûs 16: 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Tone and Tan, 1995] van der Torre, L., and Tan, Y. 1995. Cancelling and overshadowing: two types of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MCAT 95),1525–1532. Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  26. van der Tone, L., and Tan, Y. 1997. The many faces of defeasibility in defeasible deontic logic. In Nute, D., ed., Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer. 79–121.

    Google Scholar 

  27. van der Tone and Tan, 1998a] van der Tone, L., and Tan, Y. 1998a. Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL). In Logics in Artificial Intelligence,LNAI 1486,77–91. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. van der Tone, L., and Tan, Y. 1998b. The temporal analysis of Chisholm’s paradox. In Proceedings of Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’98), 650–655.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van der Torre, L., and Tan, Y. 1998c. An update semantics for prima facie obligations. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’98), 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  30. van der Torre, L., and Tan, Y. 1999. An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In McNamara, P., and Prakken, H., eds., Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. van der Tone and Weydert, 1998] van der Tone, L., and Weydert, E. 1998. Goals, desires, utilities and preferences. In Proceedings of the ECAI’98 Workshop Decision Theory meets Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  32. van der Tone, 1994] van der Tone, L. 1994. Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’94),371–375. John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  33. van der Tone, L. 1997. Reasoning about Obligations: Defeasibility in Preference-based Deontic Logic. Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  34. van der Tone, L. 1998a. Labeled logics of conditional goals. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’98), 368–369.

    Google Scholar 

  35. van der Tone, 1998b] van der Tone, L. 1998b. Phased labeled logics of conditional goals. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence,LNAI 1486, 92–106. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. van Eck, J. 1982. A system of temporally relative modal and deontic predicate logic and its philosophical application. Logique et Analyse 100: 249–381.

    Google Scholar 

  37. van Fraassen, 1973] van Fraassen, B. 1973. Values and the heart command. Journal of Philosophy 70:5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  38. von Wright, 1963] von Wright, G. 1963. The logic of preference. Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yu, X. 1995. Deontic Logic with Defeasible Detachment. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Computer Science, Germany

    Leendert W. N. van der Torre

  2. Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Yao-Hua Tan

Authors
  1. Leendert W. N. van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yao-Hua Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Lausanne, Switzerland

    Pierre Bonzon

  2. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Marcos Cavalcanti

  3. Agder College, Kristiansand, Denmark

    Rolf Nossum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, YH. (2000). Contextual Deontic Logic: Violation Contexts and Factual Defeasibility. In: Bonzon, P., Cavalcanti, M., Nossum, R. (eds) Formal Aspects of Context. Applied Logic Series, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9397-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9397-7_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5472-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9397-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation