Reasoning with Moral Conflicts

Horty, John F.

doi:10.1046/j.1468-0068.2003.00452.x

Cited by 66 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is similar to Horty's proposal in [21] in that conflicts are only removed between imperatives that are triggered (though the exact mechanism differs from Horty's). When I nevertheless call it 'naïve', this is because there are conceivable counterexamples to this method.…”

Section: A Naïve Approachmentioning

confidence: 60%

Prioritized conditional imperatives: problems and a new proposal

Hansen

2007

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The sentences of deontic logic may be understood as describing what an agent ought to do when faced with a given set of norms. If these norms come into conflict, the best the agent can be expected to do is to follow a maximal subset of the norms. Intuitively, a priority ordering of the norms can be helpful in determining the relevant sets and resolve conflicts, but a formal resolution mechanism has been difficult to provide. In particular, reasoning about prioritized conditional imperatives is overshadowed by problems such as the 'order puzzle' that are not satisfactorily resolved by existing approaches. The paper provides a new proposal as to how these problems may be overcome.

show abstract

Section: A Naïve Approachmentioning

confidence: 60%

Prioritized conditional imperatives: problems and a new proposal

Hansen

2007

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 introduces the formal framework and explains how it is used to define deontic operators. After pointing out counterintuitive results of a conflict resolution based on a method by Horty [24], I show in sec. 3 that a method developed for the resolution of inconsistencies in prioritized theory bases by Brewka [7], [8] and Nebel [31], [32] fares better (sec.…”

Section: "If I Have Promised To Meet a Friend At A Particular Time Fomentioning

confidence: 97%

“…by considering the rank of the issuing authority, notions of urgency or a gross difference in the utilities of the outcomes. The example of the road accident illustrates that the disjunctive ought operator defined in the previous section, which pays no attention to priorities, produces inadequate results: To formalize the reasoning about priorities when faced with conflicting demands, Horty [24] proposed that the priority ordering is used to first determine a set of 'binding imperatives' in the set of all imperatives in the following way:…”

Section: Reasoning With Prioritized Imperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And Hare's description of 'critical moral thinking,' that lets principles override other, less important principles, suggests that this process can overcome all moral conflicts ( [20] p. 43,50). On the other hand, Barcan Marcus [29] and Horty [24] p. 564 have argued that if it is the presence of certain facts that determines the ordering, i.e. this is not an arbitrary hacking through the Gordian knot, then situations might be incomparable (if all such facts are missing), or be completely symmetrical (as with identical obligations towards identical twins), so conflicts remain possible.…”

Section: Uniquely Prioritized Imperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives

Hansen

2006

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. When a conflict of duties arises, a resolution is often sought by determining an ordering of priority or importance. This paper examines how such a conflict resolution works, compares mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature, and gives preference to one developed by Brewka and Nebel. I distinguish between two cases -that some conflicts may remain unresolved, and that a priority ordering can be determined that resolves all -and provide semantics and axiomatic systems for accordingly defined dyadic deontic operators.

show abstract

“…469-471]. The first is "constrained consistent aggregation", where the aggregation is restricted to consistent subsets of the premise set Γ (see [16] for an update of this proposal). A major drawback of this system is that the set of derivable obligations depends largely on the way the premises are formalized: equivalent premise sets can yield different results.…”

Section: Restricting Aggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding Deontic Explosion by Contextually Restricting Aggregation

Meheus

Beirlaen

Putte

2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Reasoning with Moral Conflicts

Cited by 66 publications

References 22 publications

Prioritized conditional imperatives: problems and a new proposal

Prioritized conditional imperatives: problems and a new proposal

Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives

Avoiding Deontic Explosion by Contextually Restricting Aggregation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About