The temporal analysis of Chisholm's paradox (1998)

by L van der Torre, Y Tan
Venue:In Proceedings of the Proceedings of 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'98
Add To MetaCart
Results 1 - 10 of 17

Contrary-To-Duty Reasoning with Preference-based Dyadic Obligations

by Leendert van der Torre, Yao-hua Tan , 1999
"... this paper we introduce Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL), a preference-based ..."
Abstract - Cited by 50 (21 self) - Add to MetaCart
this paper we introduce Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL), a preference-based

Changing for the Better -- Preference Dynamics and Agent Diversity

by Fenrong Liu , 2008
"... ..."
Abstract - Cited by 42 (6 self) - Add to MetaCart
Abstract not found

Contextual Deontic Logic: Normative Agents, Violations and Independence

by Leendert van der Torre - Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , 2001
"... this paper we discuss when and how to use deontic logic in multi agent systems ..."
Abstract - Cited by 19 (4 self) - Add to MetaCart
this paper we discuss when and how to use deontic logic in multi agent systems
(Show Context)

A temporal logic of robustness

by Tim French, John C. M, Mark Reynolds - Frontiers of Combining Systems, 6th International Symposium, FroCoS 2007
"... Abstract. It can be desirable to specify polices that require a system to achieve some outcome even if a certain number of failures occur. This paper proposes a logic, RoCTL*, which extends CTL * with operators from Deontic logic, and a novel operator referred to as Robustly. This novel operator act ..."
Abstract - Cited by 12 (2 self) - Add to MetaCart
Abstract. It can be desirable to specify polices that require a system to achieve some outcome even if a certain number of failures occur. This paper proposes a logic, RoCTL*, which extends CTL * with operators from Deontic logic, and a novel operator referred to as Robustly. This novel operator acts as variety of path quantifier allowing us to consider paths which deviate from the desired behaviour of the system. Unlike most path quantifiers, the Robustly operator must be evaluated over a path rather than just a state. The Robustly operator represents the phrase "even if an additional failure occurs now or in the future", and thus the paths quantified over depend upon the failures already on the path. This paper examines the expressivity of this new logic, motivates its use and shows that it is decidable. 1
(Show Context)

Mixing legal and non-legal norms

by Alexander Boer, Tom van Engers, Radboud Winkels - JURIX 2005: THE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE., LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 2005
"... In Boer et al. (viz. [9]) we argued that evaluation of draft legislation, change from an old to a new regime, harmonization of legislation from multiple ..."
Abstract - Cited by 7 (1 self) - Add to MetaCart
In Boer et al. (viz. [9]) we argued that evaluation of draft legislation, change from an old to a new regime, harmonization of legislation from multiple
(Show Context)

Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL)

by Leendert W.N. van der Torre, Yao-hua Tan , 1998
"... In this paper we introduce Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL), a preference-based dyadic deontic logic. An obligation `ff should be (done) if fi is (done)' is true if (1) no :fffi state is as preferable as an fffi state and (2) the preferred fi states are ff states. We show that the different elem ..."
Abstract - Cited by 7 (5 self) - Add to MetaCart
In this paper we introduce Prohairetic Deontic Logic (PDL), a preference-based dyadic deontic logic. An obligation `ff should be (done) if fi is (done)' is true if (1) no :fffi state is as preferable as an fffi state and (2) the preferred fi states are ff states. We show that the different elements of this mixed representation solve different problems of deontic logic. The first part of the definition is used to formalize contrary-to-duty reasoning, that for example occurs in Chisholm's and Forrester's notorious paradoxes. The second part is used to make dilemmas inconsistent. PDL shares the intuitive semantics of preference-based deontic logics without introducing additional semantic machinery such as bi-ordering semantics or ceteris paribus preferences.

Contextual Deontic Logic -- Violation Contexts and Factual Defeasibility

by Leendert W.N. van der Torre, Yao-hua Tan , 2000
"... In this article we introduce Contextual Deontic Logic (Cdl) to analyze the relation between deontic, contextual and defeasible reasoning. The optimal state, and therefore the set of active obligations, can change radically when the violation context changes. In such cases we say that the obligations ..."
Abstract - Cited by 6 (6 self) - Add to MetaCart
In this article we introduce Contextual Deontic Logic (Cdl) to analyze the relation between deontic, contextual and defeasible reasoning. The optimal state, and therefore the set of active obligations, can change radically when the violation context changes. In such cases we say that the obligations only in force in the previous violation context are defeated; contextual deontic logic is therefore a defeasible deontic logic. This is expressed by the definition O fl (ffjfi) =def O(ffjfin:fl): `ff ought to be (done) if fi is (done) in the context where fl is (done)' is defined as `ff ought to be (done) if fi is (done) unless :fl is (done).' The unless clause formalizes explicit exceptions and is analogous to the justification in Reiter's default rules. Cdl is a monotonic defeasible deontic logic, because it has factual defeasibility but not overridden defeasibility.

Violation Contexts and Deontic Independence

by Leendert van der Torre - In Modeling and Using Context. Proceedings of the CONTEXT'99, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1688 , 1999
"... . In this paper we discuss the role of context and independence in normative reasoning. First, deontic operators -- obligations, prohibitions, permissions -- referring to the ideal context may conflict with operators referring to a violation (or contrary-to-duty) context. Second, deontic independenc ..."
Abstract - Cited by 5 (2 self) - Add to MetaCart
. In this paper we discuss the role of context and independence in normative reasoning. First, deontic operators -- obligations, prohibitions, permissions -- referring to the ideal context may conflict with operators referring to a violation (or contrary-to-duty) context. Second, deontic independence is a powerful concept to derive deontic operators from such operators of other violation contexts. These two concepts are used to determine how to proceed once a norm has been violated, a key issue of deontic logic applications in computer science. We also show how violation contexts and deontic independence can be used to give a new analysis of several notorious paradoxes of deontic logic. 1 Introduction Deontic logic is a modal logic in which flp is read as `p ought to be (done),' Fp as `p is forbidden to be (done)' and Pp as `p is permitted to be (done).' Deontic logic has traditionally been used by philosophers to analyze the structure of the normative use of language. In the eightie...
(Show Context)

An update semantics for prima facie obligations

by Leendert W.N. van der Torre, Yao-Hua Tan - PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ECAI'98 , 1998
"... The deontic logic dus is a deontic update semantics for prescriptive obligations based on the update semantics of Veltman. In dus the definition of logical validity of obligations is not based on static truth values but on dynamic action transitions. In this paper prescriptive prima facie obligation ..."
Abstract - Cited by 5 (4 self) - Add to MetaCart
The deontic logic dus is a deontic update semantics for prescriptive obligations based on the update semantics of Veltman. In dus the definition of logical validity of obligations is not based on static truth values but on dynamic action transitions. In this paper prescriptive prima facie obligations are formalized in update semantics. The logic formalizes the specificity principle, has reinstatement and does not have an irrelevance problem. Moreover, it handles the diagnostic problem by distinguishing

Dynamic Normative Reasoning Under Uncertainty: How to Distinguish Between Obligations Under Uncertainty and Prima Facie Obligations

by Leendert van der Torre, Yao-hua Tan - In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Arti Intelligence (ECAI'98 , 2001
"... The deontic update semantics is a dynamic semantics for prescriptive obligations based on Veltman's update semantics, in which the dynamic evaluation of conflicts of hierarchic obligations naturally leads to defeasibility. In this paper we use this dynamic semantics to study the diagnostic p ..."
Abstract - Cited by 2 (1 self) - Add to MetaCart
The deontic update semantics is a dynamic semantics for prescriptive obligations based on Veltman's update semantics, in which the dynamic evaluation of conflicts of hierarchic obligations naturally leads to defeasibility. In this paper we use this dynamic semantics to study the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic. For example, consider a defeasible obligation `ff ought to be done' together with the fact `:ff is done' under uncertainty. Is there an exception of the normality claim, or is it a violation of the obligation? We show that to answer this question a distinction has to be made between `normally ff ought to be done' and `prima facie ff ought to be done.' 1 The Logic of Norms Computer scientists use the logic of obligations, prohibitions and permissions -- called deontic logic -- since the early eighties to represent and reason with legal knowledge [McC83], and recently it has been used to specify and analyze security issues about electronic networks [CF97],...
(Show Context)