Deontological Square, Hexagon, and Decagon: A Deontic Framework for Supererogation

Joerden, Jan C.

doi:10.1007/s11787-012-0041-1

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since implication can take many forms, the general statement of the OIC principle underspecifies the nature of the inferential relationship between ‘ought’ and ‘can’. In the philosophical literature, the usual candidates for this relationship are presupposition [ 21 ], conversational implicature [ 22 ], pragmatic-logical inference [ 23 ], and conceptual or analytic entailment [ 10 , 24 ]. This issue is important because each account of implication (insofar as they are understood as hypotheses about ordinary cognition) will entail different predictions about people’s judgments.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ordinary people seem to understand obligations as having a behavior-regulating role—i.e., obligations are deemed social or moral constraints on actions [ 2 , 3 ]. Accordingly, it would seem rather incoherent to think that such a constraint should still be in force when it cannot be effective, namely, when the action in question cannot be carried out (for a similar argument, see [ 23 ]). Cases of self-imposed inability may simply constitute exceptions to this.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does ought imply can?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most philosophers believe that a person can have an obligation only insofar as she is able to fulfil it, a principle generally referred to as “Ought Implies Can”. Arguably, this principle reflects something basic about the ordinary concept of obligation. However, in a paper published recently in this journal, Wesley Buckwalter and John Turri presented evidence for the conclusion that ordinary people in fact reject that principle. With a series of studies, they claimed to have demonstrated that, in people’s judgements, obligations persist irrespective of whether those who hold them have the ability to fulfil them. We argue in this paper that due to some problems in their design, Buckwalter & Turri’s conclusions may not be warranted. We present the results of a series of studies demonstrating the problems with their design and showing that, with an improved design, people judge that obligation depends on ability after all.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does ought imply can?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Среди современных и компактных «вычислительных» инструментов этики и в большей степени логических средств в области этических изысканий выделяется деонтический гексагон [14], берущий свое структурно-функциональное начало в логическом квадрате и являющийся его расширением [15] (рис. 14).…”

Section: рисунок 12 -матрица добродетелейunclassified

Ethical Calculator: from Philosophical «Computational Morality» to Machine Ethics of Artificial Moral Agents (АMA)

Makulin¹

2020

ОФИК

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the features of modern socio-philosophical knowledge is its involvement in the solution of ethi-cal problems in new conditions, determined by the consequences of the “information explosion”, digi-talization, the massive introduction of digital tech-nologies in the humanitarian spheres. One of the key problems is understanding the role of the so-called “machine ethics”, ie. a set of theoretical ap-proaches to hypothetical problems of the moral be-havior of machines in the framework of artificial in-telligence. The paper expounds the point of view according to which ethics, over the centuries of the formation of various philosophical systems, has developed many mechanisms of its own algorithmi-cization, which opens up wide opportunities for the formation of “computational morality”, up to the appearance of artificial moral agents (AMA). The paper briefly examines the history of the formaliza-tion of ethical problems and solutions. The key at-tempts of algorithmicization of ethical issues in the history of philosophy are identified, the socio-philosophical component of such a phenomenon as the “ethical calculator” is characterized.

show abstract

There Is No Cube of Opposition

Béziau

2017

Studies in Universal Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deontological Square, Hexagon, and Decagon: A Deontic Framework for Supererogation

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Does ought imply can?

Does ought imply can?

Ethical Calculator: from Philosophical «Computational Morality» to Machine Ethics of Artificial Moral Agents (АMA)

There Is No Cube of Opposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About