Semantic Analysis of Chisholm's Paradox

Violation handling is a crucial problem in many applications. therefore its paradoxes have been studied in, amongst others, artificial intelligence, agent theory and computer science. The standard way to study these paradoxes is to model them using a formal language, and use formal logic to consider whether the set of sentences is inconsistent, the sentences logically follow from others, or some other anomaly occurs. During the past decades, developments in temporal, action and non-monotonic logics have contributed to a better understanding of the paradoxes and thus of violation handling. In this paper we propose an alternative way to analyze Chisholm’s notorious contrary-to-duty paradox in deontic logic. We model the paradox using semantic models, using insights from conceptual modelling. We aim to gain insight in the open question whether the paradoxes are in some sense logical contradictions, or only apparent contradictions. If a paradox is only an apparent contradiction, then there has to be a model interpreting all sentences.

[1]  Leendert van der Torre,et al.  Reasoning about obligations: defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic , 1997 .

[2]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Deontic Logic as Founded on Tense Logic , 1981 .

[3]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Dyadic Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations , 1997 .

[4]  Jan Broersen Modal Action Logics for Reasoning about Reactive Systems , 2003 .

[5]  J. Horty Agency and Deontic Logic , 2001 .

[6]  Yao-Hua Tan,et al.  The Many Faces of Defeasibility in Defeasible Deontic Logic , 1997 .

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

[8]  Roderick M. Chisholm,et al.  Contrary-To-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic , 1963 .

[9]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Goal generation in the BOID architecture , 2002 .

[10]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[11]  Marvin Belzer,et al.  Dyadic deontic detachment , 2004, Synthese.

[12]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  On Obligations and Abilities , 2004, DEON.

[13]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning , 1999, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[14]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  The Temporal Analysis of Chisholm's Paradox , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[15]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Contrary‐to‐duty reasoning with preference‐based dyadic obligations , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Paul McNamara,et al.  Deontic logic , 2006, Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century.