A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible Logic

Abstract

material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Reasoning With and About Norms in Logical Argumentation

“…In [5,6,18] argumentative characterizations of normative systems employing priority orderings are studied. Their language is restricted to literals only, whereas our approach adopts a full propositional language.…”

“…Nonmonotonicity is captured in constrained I/O logics through considering maximal consistent families of norms. In recent years, also argumentative representations of deontic logics have attracted increasing interest [4,5,6,7,8,9]. This paper is the first to provide argumentative characterizations for a significant class of I/O logics, including all original logics from [3].…”

Defeasible Normative Reasoning: A Proof-Theoretic Integration of Logical Argumentation

“…Its auspiciousness is due to its pivotal notions of argumentative attack and defense, which are strongly akin to natural reasoning practices (Mercier and Sperber 2011). Due to the inevitability of norm conflicts and defeasibility in normative reasoning, recent years have also seen an increasing interest in argumentative characterizations of logics of normative reasoning (Straßer and Arieli 2015;da Costa Peirera et al 2017;Beirlaen, Straßer, and Heyninck 2018;Governatori, Rotolo, and Riveret 2018;Liao et al 2018;Pigozzi and van der Torre 2018;Pardo and Straßer 2022).…”

Logical Judges Challenge Human Judges on the Strange Case of B.C.-Valjean

“…From those early attempts, much progress has been made: research on deontic and defeasible reasoning [1,5], ontological reasoning [7], and argumentation [8,18] is extremely lively and helps disclosing the many connections between logic programming (and, more in general, computational logic and automated reasoning) and legal reasoning. The application of automated reasoning to digital forensics is another promising research direction [6] whose potential is witnessed by the ongoing "Digital Forensics: Evidence Analysis via Intelligent Systems and Practices" (DigForASP) COST Action 1 .…”