Sequences, Obligations, and the Contrary-to-Duty Paradox

In order to provide an implemented language of deontic concepts on complex actions for the purposes of social simulation, we consider the logical representation of obligations, sequences of actions, and the Contrary to Duty (CTD) Paradox. We show that approaches which follow Standard Deontic Logic (Carmo and Jones (2002)) or Dynamic Deontic Logic (Khosla and Maibaum (1987) and Meyer (1988)) encounter problems with obligations, sequences, and CTDs. In particular, it is crucial to differentiate sequences of obligations from obligations on sequences and to consider contract change over time. Contra Meyer (1988), we argue that the CTD problem cannot be reduced to a a sequence of obligations. Contra Carmo and Jones (2002), the analysis of CTDs needs explicit state change and does not need a concept of ideality. We discuss Porn's Criterion, which states that it is critical to a comprehensive theory of deontic reasoning to take dynamic aspects into account (Porn (1977:ix-x)); in our view, this ought to encompass Contract State Change. In a theory of deontic specifications on actions, we show that articulated, compositional, and productive markers for violation and fulfillment are key to address the problems identified. The theorical arguments inform the Abstract Contract Calculator, a prototype implementation in Haskell of a language for reasoning with and simulating the results of deontically specified actions (Wyner (2006a) and Wyner (2006b)). With the language, one can represent and study the outcomes of multi-agent artificial normative systems as agents execute actions over time.

[1]  J.-J. Ch. Meyer,et al.  Dynamic logic for reasoning about actions and agents , 1999 .

[2]  M. V. Dignum,et al.  A Model for Organizational Interaction: based on Agents, founded in Logic , 2000 .

[3]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification , 1994 .

[4]  H. C. Doets,et al.  The Haskell Road to Logic, Maths and Programming: Textbook Programs , 2004 .

[5]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Dynamic logic , 2001, SIGA.

[6]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification , 1993, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[7]  Adam Zachary Wyner,et al.  A Functional Program for Agents, Actions, and Deontic Specifications , 2006, DALT.

[8]  Frank Dignum,et al.  The Role of Deontic Logic in the Specification of Information Systems , 1998, Logics for Databases and Information Systems.

[9]  R. Montague.  Formal philosophy; selected papers of Richard Montague , 1974 .

[10]  Yde Venema,et al.  Dynamic Logic by David Harel, Dexter Kozen and Jerzy Tiuryn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hardback: ISBN 0–262–08289–6, $50, xv + 459 pages , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[11]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[12]  Stuart Kent,et al.  Formally specifying temporal constraints and error recovery , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[13]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic , 1987, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[14]  Marek Sergot,et al.  On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective , 1994 .

[15]  O. K. Moore,et al.  The Formal Analysis of Normative Concepts , 1957 .

[16]  Bruce Edmonds,et al.  Editorial: The use of logic in agent-based social simulation , 2004 .

[17]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[18]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[19]  Gabriela Lindemann,et al.  Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Andrew J. I. Jones,et al.  Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duties , 2002 .

[21]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  Temporal Logic in Specification , 1987, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[22]  Marek Sergot,et al.  A computational theory of normative positions , 2001, ACM Trans. Comput. Log..

[23]  L.M.M. Royakkers.  Representing Legal Rules in Deontic Logic , 1996 .

[24]  Ron van der Meyden,et al.  The Dynamic Logic of Permission , 1990, J. Log. Comput..

[25]  Adam Zachary Wyner,et al.  Maintaining Obligations on Stative Expressions in a Deontic Action Logic , 2004, DEON.

[26]  G. Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Simulation for the social scientist , 1999 .

[27]  T. S. E. Maibaum,et al.  The Prescription and Description of State Based Systems , 1987, Temporal Logic in Specification.

[28]  Maria Fasli.  Formal Systems and Agent-Based Social Simulation Equals Null? , 2004, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..