An Inconsistency-Adaptive Deontic Logic for Normative Conflicts

Non-monotonic reasoning with normative conflicts in multi-agent deontic logic

“…This paper fits within the larger project of adaptive deontic logics devised for consistently accommodating normative conflicts (see e.g. [7,29,39,41]). It improves on earlier work presented in [6].…”

“…In a non-agentive setting, paraconsistent deontic logics were presented in [6,7,11,34]. Notwithstanding their representation of agents, the logics presented here are closely related to the system DP r from [7]. However, whereas DP r uses the paraconsistent logic CLuNs as its LLL, PMDL r and PMDL m use an agentive extension of Priest's LP.…”

“…For some other adaptive deontic logics that can consistently accommodate instances of normative conflicts, see [7,29,39,41]. For an introduction to the framework of adaptive logics, see [3].…”

Adaptive Logic Characterizations of Input/Output Logic

“…Table 1 shows, among others, how the I/O operations out 1 to out 4 and out + 1 to out + 4 from [29] are obtained by combinations of the rules defined above. 11 Note that all of them make use of (SI), (AND) and (WO). To cover the border case where G = ∅, one needs to add the (zero premise) rule (Z) in order to ensure that all tautologies are in the output (see [30, p. 157]).…”

Conflicting reasons, unconflicting ‘ought’s

“…We should not go in for this as a solution to our problem because Goble's modification would not allow us to generate the required reasons in Two Breakfasts. Second others accept something like Single 'Ought' Closure and Consistent 'Ought' Agglomeration but go on to deny the derivation of explosion (see, e.g., Beirlaen et al 2013). Though these solutions are plausible as theories of reasoning, I believe they are not adequate for dealing with (necessary) entailments among reasons because they give up on certain structural properties of logical consequence (see Nair 2014 for discussion).…”