Good Samaritans, Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives, and Epistemic Obligations

Åqvist, Lennart

doi:10.2307/2214624

Cited by 96 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Related Work Puzzles and paradoxes have accompanied deontic logic since its very beginning [30], starting with its formalisation in the so-called standard deontic logic (SDL). See von Wright's account [31] and McNamara's article [19] Problems in formalising CTDs in the original papers on deontic logic were first discussed by Chisholm in [8].Åqvist [2] gave a solution to the paradoxes related to CTDs (and also to the Good Samaritan and the paradox of the epistemic obligation) by proposing different semantic relations for primary and reparational obligations. The problem with the proposed solution is that one might need an unbounded (and eventually infinite) number of such relations in case of an unbounded number of nested CTDs.…”

Section: Final Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in the Specification of Full Contracts

Pace

Schneider

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The complete specification of full contracts -contracts which include tolerated exceptions, and which enable reasoning about the contracts themselves, can be achieved using a combination of temporal and deontic concepts. In this paper we discuss the challenges in combining deontic and other relevant logics, in particular focusing on operators for choice, obligations over sequences, contrary-to-duty obligations, and how internal and external decisions may be incorporated in an action-based language for specifying contracts. We provide different viable interpretations and approaches for the development of such a sound logic and outline challenges for the future.

show abstract

Section: Final Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in the Specification of Full Contracts

Pace

Schneider

2009

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present section exposes a logic based on this view. 5 This logic will then be used to characterize the type of necessity involved in Anderson's reduction, thereby delivering a contextual version of it.…”

Section: A Modal Logic Of Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We follow the presentation of the paradox given in [5]. Once "Smith robbing Jones" is represented by r and "Smith refraining from robbing Jones" by ¬r and, similarly, "Smith being punished" by p while "Smith not being punished" by ¬p, this set of ordinary language sentences-also called the Chisholm's set-can receive the following formalizations within SDL, which differ in the way they symbolize the conditional statements at points 3 and 4.…”

Section: An Ascriptive Glance At Chisholm's Paradoxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norms as ascriptions of violations: An analysis in modal logic

Grossi¹

2011

Journal of Applied Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper proposes a formal analysis of a theory of norms resulting from pulling together Anderson's reduction, the analysis of counts-as, and a novel approach to the formal representation of language granularity in modal logic. We refer to such theory as the ascriptive view of norms. Concretely, the paper proposes a new formal definition of countsas statements which is used as a basis for a new reduction of the deontic notion of obligation. The formal properties of these new notions are thoroughly investigated and put in perspective with related work. Finally, they are also applied to provide novel formal analyses of standard benchmark problems in deontic logic such as Chisholm's paradox and Jørgensen's dilemma.

show abstract

“…For a discussion of contrary-to-duty obligations (or imperatives), see e.g. Carmo and Jones [14], which is an encyclopedic entry, as well as Chisholm [28], Åqvist [4], Hage [44], Carmo and Jones [13], Prakken and Sergot [91][92][93], and Governatori and Rotolo [42].…”

Section: Contrary-to-duty Obligations and Conflicting Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic formulae, argument structures, and a narrative on identity and deception: a formal representation from the AJIT subproject within AURANGZEB

Nissan

2008

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modelling of deception is an active field in artificial intelligence. Episodic formulae were introduced, applied and refined in several previous articles, some of them concerned with identity, and some, with tasks of guessing agents' minds. The AURANGZEB project is specifically concerned with combining this kind of representation with argument structure data (in particular, Toulmin's). Two previous articles were concerned with the MURAD subproject, whereas this paper introduces the AJIT model. In MURAD, the kind of deception consisted of having a victim misunderstand a perpetrator's real intentions. In AJIT, instead, a powerful agent is outsmarted by means of exchanged identities.

show abstract

Good Samaritans, Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives, and Epistemic Obligations

Cited by 96 publications

References 5 publications

Challenges in the Specification of Full Contracts

Challenges in the Specification of Full Contracts

Norms as ascriptions of violations: An analysis in modal logic

Epistemic formulae, argument structures, and a narrative on identity and deception: a formal representation from the AJIT subproject within AURANGZEB

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About