Action negation and alternative reductions for dynamic deontic logics

Abstract Dynamic deontic logics reduce normative assertions about explicit complex actions to standard dynamic logic assertions about the relation between complex actions and violation conditions. We address two general, but related problems in this field. The first is to find a formalization of the notion of ‘action negation’ that (1) has an intuitive interpretation as an action forming combinator and (2) does not impose restrictions on the use of other relevant action combinators such as sequence and iteration, and (3) has a meaningful interpretation in the normative context. The second problem we address concerns the reduction from deontic assertions to dynamic logic assertions. Our first point is that we want this reduction to obey the free-choice semantics for norms. For ought-to-be deontic logics it is generally accepted that the free-choice semantics is counter-intuitive. But for dynamic deontic logics we actually consider it a viable, if not, the better alternative. Our second concern with the reduction is that we want it to be more liberal than the ones that were proposed before in the literature. For instance, Meyer's reduction does not leave room for action whose normative status is neither permitted nor forbidden. We test the logics we define in this paper against a set of minimal logic requirements.

[1]  Ewa Orlowska,et al.  Dynamic logic with program specifications and its relational proof system , 1993, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

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

[3]  R. Hilpinen,et al.  Actions in deontic logic , 1994 .

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

[5]  Hector-Neri Castañeda,et al.  Thinking and Doing , 1975 .

[6]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Free choice and contextually permitted actions , 1996, Stud Logica.

[7]  Hector-Neri Castañeda,et al.  Thinking and Doing: The Philosophical Foundations of Institutions , 1975 .

[8]  Risto Hilpinen,et al.  Deontic Logic: An Introduction , 1970 .

[9]  S. Lindström,et al.  New Foundations for Ethical Theory , 2001 .

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

[11]  P. J. Fitzgerald,et al.  Law and Logic , 1964 .

[12]  Alfred Tarski,et al.  Relational selves as self-affirmational resources , 2008 .

[13]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Impossible possible worlds vindicated , 1975, J. Philos. Log..

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

[15]  Jaakko Hintikka Some Main Problems of Deontic Logic , 1970 .

[16]  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..

[17]  R. M. Hare,et al.  Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. , 1965 .

[18]  Krister Segerberg Outline of a Logic of Action , 2000, Advances in Modal Logic.

[19]  R. Hilpinen Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings , 1981 .

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Norms, Logics and Information Systems: New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science , 1998 .

[21]  David Makinson,et al.  New studies in deontic logic , 1981 .

[22]  A. Montefiore NORM AND ACTION , 1964 .

[23]  Hector-Neri Castañeda,et al.  The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to all of them in one Fell Swoop , 1981 .

[24]  Jörgen Jörgensen,et al.  Imperatives and logic , 1937, Erkenntnis.

[25]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  On the Representation of Action and Agency in the Theory of Normative Positions , 2001, Fundam. Informaticae.

[26]  Risto Hilpinen New studies in deontic logic : norms, actions, and the foundations of ethics , 1981 .

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

[28]  Krister Segerberg,et al.  Getting started: Beginnings in the logic of action , 1992, Stud Logica.

[29]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Modal Correspondence Theory , 1977 .

[30]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  A Fixed-point Characterization of a Deontic Logic of Regular Action , 2001, Fundam. Informaticae.

[31]  E. Lepore,et al.  Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson , 1988 .

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