Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

OBLIGATION, FREE CHOICE, AND THE LOGIC OF WEAKEST PERMISSIONS

  • ALBERT J.J. ANGLBERGER (a1), NOBERT GRATZL (a2) and OLIVIER ROY (a3)

Abstract

We introduce a new understanding of deontic modals that we call obligations as weakest permissions. We argue for its philosophical plausibility, study its expressive power in neighborhood models, provide a complete Hilbert-style axiom system for it and show that it can be extended and applied to practical norms in decision and game theory.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*MUNICH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY LMU MUNICH FAKULTÄT FÜR PHILOSOPHIE, WISSENSCHAFTSTHEORIE UND RELIGIONSWISSENSCHAFT MUNICH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY GESCHWISTER-SCHOLL-PLATZ 1 D-80539 MÜNCHEN E-mail: albert@anglberger.org
MUNICH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY LMU MUNICH FAKULTÄT FÜR PHILOSOPHIE, WISSENSCHAFTSTHEORIE UND RELIGIONSWISSENSCHAFT MUNICH CENTER FOR MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY GESCHWISTER-SCHOLL-PLATZ 1 D-80539 MÜNCHEN E-mail: Norbert.Gratzl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
UNIVERSITÄT BAYREUTH DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY D-95440 BAYREUTH E-mail: Olivier.Roy@uni-bayreuth.de

References

Hide All
Anglberger, A., Dong, H., & Roy, O. (2014). Open reading without free choice. In Cariani, F., Grossi, D., Meheus, J., and Parent, X., editors. Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1932.
Asher, N., & Bonevac, D. (2005). Free choice permission is strong permission. Synthese, 145(3), 303323.
Belnap, N. D., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in our Indeterminist World. New York: Oxford University Press on Demand.
van Benthem, J. (1979). Minimal deontic logics. Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 8(1), 3641.
Blackburn, P., De Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2002). Modal Logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brandenburger, A., & Friedenberg, A. (2008). Intrinsic correlation in games. Journal of Economic Theory, 141(1), 2867.
Brink, D. (1994). Moral conflict and its structure. The Philosophical Review, 103(2), 215247.
Broersen, J. (2004). Action negation and alternative reductions for dynamic deontic logics. Journal of Applied Logic, 2, 153168.
Brown, F. M. (1987). The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Cubitt, R. P., & Sugden, R. (2011). Common reasoning in games: A lewisian analysis of common knowledge of rationality. Technical report, CeDEx discussion paper series.
Czelakowski, J. (1997). Action and deontology. In Ejerhed, E., and Lindström, S., editors. Logic, Action and Cognition. New York: Springer, pp. 4787.
Donagan, A. (1984). Consistency in rationalist moral systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 81(6), 291309.
Dong, H. (2014). A survey between 5wp and dal. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bayreuth.
Gratzl, N. (2013). Sequent calculi for multi-modal logic with interaction. In Grossi, D., Roy, O., and Huang, H., editors. Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 124134.
Hansson, S. (2013). The varieties of permissions. In Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., and van der Torre, L., editors. Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. London: College Publications.
Horty, J. (2012). Reasons as Defaults. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jeffrey, R. (1965). The Logic of Decision. New-York: McGraw-Hill.
Joyce, J. M. (2012). Regret and instability in causal decision theory. Synthese, 187(1), 123145.
Kamp, H. (1973). Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 74, 5774.
Lellmann, B. (2014). Axioms vs hypersequent rules with context restrictions: Theory and applications. In Demri, S., Kapur, D., and Weidenbach, C., editors. Automated Reasoning, Volume 8562 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, pp. 307321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08587-6_23.
Lewis, D. (1979). A problem about permission. In Saarinen, E. et al. , editors. Essays in honour of Jaakko Hintikka. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 163175.
Makinson, D. (1984). Stenius’ approach to disjunctive permission. Theoria, 50(23), 138147.
McCarty, J. (1980). Circumscription – a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(12), 2739.
McNamara, P. (2014). Deontic logic. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/ logic-deontic/.
Rasmusen, E. (2007). Games and Information (fourth Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roy, O., Anglberger, A., & Gratzl, N. (2014). The logic of best action from a deontic perspective. In Baltag, A., and Smets, S., editors. Johan F.A.K. van Benthem on Logical and Informational Dynamics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 657676.
Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (Third ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trypuz, R., & Kulicki, P. (2009). A systematics of deontic action logics based on boolean algebra. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 18(34), 253270.
Trypuz, R., & Kulicki, P. (2011). A norm-giver meets deontic action logic. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 20, 5972.
Trypuz, R., & Kulicki, P. (2013). On deontic action logics based on boolean algebra. Journal of Logic and Computation.
Weirich, P. (2012). Causal decision theory. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/ entries/decision-causal/.
Wright, G. H. v. (1963). Norm and Action - A Logical Enquiry. London: Routledge.
Wright, G. H.v. (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed