Abstract. In this paper, we present an adaptive logic for deontic conflicts, called P2.1 r , that is based on Goble's logic SDLaPe-a bimodal extension of Goble's logic P that invalidates aggregation for all prima facie obligations. The logic P2.1 r has several advantages with respect to SDLaPe. For consistent sets of obligations it yields the same results as Standard Deontic Logic and for inconsistent sets of obligations, it validates aggregation "as much as possible". It thus leads to a richer consequence set than SDLaPe. The logic P2.1 r avoids Goble's criticisms against other non-adjunctive systems of deontic logic. Moreover, it can handle all the 'toy examples' from the literature as well as more complex ones.

Abstract. In a multi-agent deontic setting, normative conflicts can take a variety of different logical forms. In this paper, we present a very general characterization of such conflicts, including both intra-and inter-agent normative conflicts, conflicts between groups of agents, conflicts between obligations and permissions, and conflicts between contradictory norms. In order to account for the consistent possibility of this wide variety of conflict-types, we present a paraconsistent deontic logic, i.e. a logic that invalidates the classical principle of non-contradiction. Next, we strengthen this logic within the adaptive logics framework for defeasible reasoning. The resulting inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic interprets a given set of norms 'as consistently as possible'.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract