Deontic Reasoning

Fenrong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1344-4_11

2011-01-01

Abstract: Deontic logic is the logical study of normative concepts such as obligation, prohibition, permission and commitment. As we will see in this chapter, it is a very natural setting for with preference logic, both in its static versions (cf. [96, 183]) and in terms of the new dynamic systems of this book [48].

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Defeasible deontic logic: arguing about permission and obligation

Huimin Dong,Beishui Liao,Reka Markovich,Leendert van der Torre

2022-01-01

Abstract:Defeasible deontic logic uses techniques from non-monotonic logic to address various challenges in normative reasoning, such as prima facie permissions and obligations, moral dilemmas, deontic detachment, contrary-to-duty reasoning and legal interpretation. In this article, we use formal argumentation to design defeasible deontic logics, based on two classical deontic logics. In particular, we use the ASPIC(+) structured argumentation theory to define non-monotonic variants of well-understood monotonic modal logics. We illustrate the ASPIC(+)based approach and the resulting defeasible deontic logics using argumentation about strong permission.
Deontic Logic And Preference Change

benthem j van,fenrong liu

2014-01-01

Abstract:The normative realm involves deontic notions such as obligation or permission, as well as information about relevant actions and states of the world. This mixture is not static, given once and for all. Both information and normative evaluation available to agents are subject to changes with various triggers, such as learning new facts or accepting new laws. This paper explores models for this setting in terms of dynamic logics for information-driven agency. Our paradigm will be dynamic-epistemic logics for knowledge and belief, and their current extensions to the statics and dynamics of agents' preferences. Here the link with deontics is that moral reasoning may be viewed as involving preferences of the acting agent as well as moral authorities such as lawgivers, one's conscience, or yet others. In doing so we discuss a large number of themes: primitive 'betterness' order versus reason-based preferences (employing a model of 'priority graphs'), the entanglement of preference and informational attitudes such as belief, interactive social agents, and scenarios with long-term patterns emerging over time. Specific deontic issues considered include paradoxes of deontic reasoning, acts of changing obligations, and changing norm systems. We conclude with some further directions, as well as a series of pointers to related work, including different paradigms for looking at these same phenomena.
Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation

Beishui Liao,Nir Oren,Leendert van der Torre,Serena Villata

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exy009

2018-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:Deontic logic sentences define what an agent ought to do when faced with a set of norms. These norms may come into conflict such that a priority ordering over them is necessary to resolve these conflicts. Dung’s seminal paper raises the still open challenge to use formal argumentation to represent non monotonic logics, highlight- ing its value to exchange, communicate and resolve possibly conflicting viewpoints in distributed scenarios. In this paper, we propose a formal framework to study various properties of prioritized non monotonic reasoning in formal argumentation, in line with this idea. More precisely, we show how a version of prioritized default logic and Brewka-Eiter’s construction in answer set programming can be obtained in argumentation via the weakest and last link principles. We also show how to represent Hansen’s recent construction for prioritized normative reasoning by adding arguments using weak contraposition via permissive norms, and their relationship to Caminada’s “hang yourself” arguments.
From Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC$$^+$$

Huimin Dong,Beishui Liao,Réka Markovich,Leendert van der Torre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_6

2019-01-01

Abstract: In this paper we use formal argumentation to design non-monotonic deontic logics, based on two monotonic deontic logics. In particular, we use the structured argumentation theory ASPIC$^+$ to define non-monotonic variants of well-understood modal logics. We illustrate the approach using argumentation about free-choice permission.
Priority Structures in Deontic Logic

Johan Van Benthem,Davide Grossi,Fenrong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12028

2013-01-01

Theoria

Abstract:This article proposes a systematic application of recent developments in the logic of preference to a number of topics in deontic logic. The key junction is the well-known Hansson conditional for dyadic obligations. These conditionals are generalized by pairing them with reasoning about syntactic priority structures. The resulting two-level approach to obligations is tested first against standard scenarios of contrary-to-duty obligations, leading also to a generalization for the Kanger-Anderson reduction of deontic logic. Next, the priority framework is applied to model two intuitively different sorts of deontic dynamics of obligations, based on information changes and on genuine normative events. In this two-level setting, we also offer novel takes on vexed issues such as the Chisholm paradox and modelling strong permission. Finally, the priority framework is shown to provide a unifying setting for the study of operations on norms as such, in particular, adding or deleting individual norms, and even merging whole norm systems in different manners.
Reasoning in Social Settings

Fenrong Liu,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exab039

2021-01-01

Journal of Logic and Computation

Abstract:New perspectives keep emerging in the logical study of social interactions, witnessed by yet another collection of research papers. Once our focus of reasoning shifts from an individual to a social setting, interesting issues naturally arise. The central question is the following: how is an individual’s attitude related to that of others and that of a group, especially when we take into account the informative communication between agents, as well as the structures of a group? This has been studied to various extent in social epistemology, social choice theory, social norms theory, etc. In this context, our main concern is logic: how can a logical approach shed light on our reasoning about these scenarios? We are not giving a comprehensive overview but just to mention some research that is mostly relevant. Communication between agents, public or private, has been extensively studied in dynamic epistemic logic (e.g. [1, 9...
Deontic Meaning Making in Legislative Discourse

Jian Li,Le Cheng,Winnie Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0002

2016-01-01

Semiotica

Abstract:Modality and negation, as two important linguistic features used to realise subjectivity, have been investigated within various disciplines, such as logic, linguistics and philosophy, and law. The interaction between modality and negation, as a relatively new and undeveloped domain, has however not been paid due attention in scholarship. This corpus-based study investigates three aspects of their interaction: the differentiation of the deontic value by negation, the categorization of deontic modality in Hong Kong legislation via negation, and distribution patterns of deontic modality, especially distribution patterns of the negation of modality, in Hong Kong legislation. This study shows that negation is a powerful linguistic mechanism not only for determining the nature and functions of modality, but also for determining the value of modality. This study also reveals that negation helps us to investigate the distribution of deontic modality in Hong Kong legislation and hence revisit the legal framework in Hong Kong. A study taking into account the discursive and professional aspects of the interaction between deontic modality and negation will provide a theoretical basis for the natural language processing of modality and negation in legislation and also offer important implications for the study of negation and modality in general contexts.
Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic

Zhe Yu,Yiwei Lu

2024-09-18

Abstract:In our previous research, we provided a reasoning system (called LeSAC) based on argumentation theory to provide legal support to designers during the design process. Building on this, this paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences. We illustrate the advantages and necessity of introducing deontic logic and designing explanations under LeSAC by modelling two cases in the context of autonomous driving. In particular, this paper also discusses the requirements of the updated LeSAC to guarantee rationality, and proves that a well-defined LeSAC can satisfy the rationality postulate for rule-based argumentation frameworks. This ensures the system's ability to provide coherent, legally valid explanations for complex design decisions.

Artificial Intelligence
Doxastic Preference Logic over Propositions

Liu Fen-rong

2010-01-01

Abstract:Preference is a core notion in philosophy,game theory,decision theory and utility theory,and it has played a central role in philosophy of action and rational choice. This paper studies preferences from a logical perspective. I first introduce an existing Doxastic preference logic over individual objects,and then extend it to propositions. A new Doxastic preference logic over propositions is proposed,and its completeness and a representation theorem have been proved. The paper also explores a notion of propositional preference as a lift from preference relations over possible worlds and presents a complete logic for it. Finally,the two Doxastic preference logics over objects and over propositions,respectively,are compared,and I show that they are essentially the same in terms of reasoning with preferences.
Proof Theory and Decision Procedures for Deontic STIT Logics

Tim S. Lyon,Kees van Berkel

2024-10-04

Abstract:This paper provides a set of cut-free complete sequent-style calculi for deontic STIT ('See To It That') logics used to formally reason about choice-making, obligations, and norms in a multi-agent setting. We leverage these calculi to write a proof-search algorithm deciding deontic, multi-agent STIT logics with (un)limited choice and introduce a loop-checking mechanism to ensure the termination of the algorithm. Despite the acknowledged potential for deontic reasoning in the context of autonomous, multi-agent scenarios, this work is the first to provide a syntactic decision procedure for this class of logics. Our proof-search procedure is designed to provide verifiable witnesses/certificates of the (in)validity of formulae, which permits an analysis of the (non)theoremhood of formulae and act as explanations thereof. We show how the proof system and decision algorithm can be used to automate normative reasoning tasks such as duty checking (viz. determining an agent's obligations relative to a given knowledge base), compliance checking (viz. determining if a choice, considered by an agent as potential conduct, complies with the given knowledge base), and joint fulfillment checking (viz. determining whether under a specified factual context an agent can jointly fulfill all their duties).

Logic in Computer Science,Logic
Non-monotonic Reasoning and Argumentation System

XIE Kai-bo,LIAO Bei-shui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8425(s).2013.09.007

2013-01-01

Abstract:As first-order logic alone cannot depict the non-monotony in the human reasoning process,logicians try to establish new logic systems to deal with this problem,and these new systems are called non-monotonic logic.Traditionally,they adopt the way of consistency and unprovability.However,since the late 1980s and early 1990s,more and more logicians have begun to use a new way to realize the non-monotony of reasoning,which is argumentation.This paper will expound argumentation system and how argumentation framework is used to depict non-monotonic reasoning,and analyze the connections between them.
Impossible and Conflicting Obligations in Justification Logic

Federico L. G. Faroldi,Meghdad Ghari,Eveline Lehmann,Thomas Studer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.15763

2023-10-06

Abstract:Different notions of the consistency of obligations collapse in standard deontic logic. In justification logics, which feature explicit reasons for obligations, the situation is different. Their strength depends on a constant specification and on the available set of operations for combining different reasons. We present different consistency principles in justification logic and compare their logical strength. We propose a novel semantics for which justification logics with the explicit version of axiom D, jd, are complete for arbitrary constant specifications. We then discuss the philosophical implications with regard to some deontic paradoxes.

Logic in Computer Science
Reasoning about Social Choice Functions

Nicolas Troquard,Wiebe van der Hoek,Michael Wooldridge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9189-z

2011-02-16

Abstract:We introduce a logic specifically designed to support reasoning about social choice functions. The logic includes operators to capture strategic ability, and operators to capture agent preferences. We establish a correspondence between formulae in the logic and properties of social choice functions, and show that the logic is expressively complete with respect to social choice functions, i.e., that every social choice function can be characterised as a formula of the logic. We prove that the logic is decidable, and give a complete axiomatization. To demonstrate the value of the logic, we show in particular how it can be applied to the problem of determining whether a social choice function is strategy-proof.

Multiagent Systems
Value-based Practical Reasoning: Modal Logic + Argumentation

Jieting Luo,Beishui Liao,Dov Gabbay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/faia220157

2022-01-01

Comma

Abstract:Autonomous agents are supposed to be able to finish tasks or achieve goals that are assigned by their users through performing a sequence of actions. Since there might exist multiple plans that an agent can follow and each plan might promote or demote different values along each action, the agent should be able to resolve the conflicts between them and evaluate which plan he should follow. In this paper, we develop a logic-based framework that combines modal logic and argumentation for value-based practical reasoning with plans. Modal logic is used as a technique to represent and verify whether a plan with its local properties of value promotion or demotion can be followed to achieve an agent's goal. We then propose an argumentation-based approach that allows an agent to reason about his plans in the form of supporting or objecting to a plan using the verification results.
A Defeasible Deontic Calculus for Resolving Norm Conflicts

Taylor Olson,Roberto Salas-Damian,Kenneth D. Forbus

2024-07-06

Abstract:When deciding how to act, we must consider other agents' norms and values. However, our norms are ever-evolving. We often add exceptions or change our minds, and thus norms can conflict over time. Therefore, to maintain an accurate mental model of other's norms, and thus to avoid social friction, such conflicts must be detected and resolved quickly. Formalizing this process has been the focus of various deontic logics and normative multi-agent systems. We aim to bridge the gap between these two fields here. We contribute a defeasible deontic calculus with inheritance and prove that it resolves norm conflicts. Through this analysis, we also reveal a common resolution strategy as a red herring. This paper thus contributes a theoretically justified axiomatization of norm conflict detection and resolution.

Artificial Intelligence
Explicit non-normal modal logic

Atefeh Rohani,Thomas Studer

2023-08-11

Abstract:Faroldi argues that deontic modals are hyperintensional and thus traditional modal logic cannot provide an appropriate formalization of deontic situations. To overcome this issue, we introduce novel justification logics as hyperintensional analogues to non-normal modal logics. We establish soundness and completeness with respect to various models and we study the problem of realization.

Logic in Computer Science
Normative Conditional Reasoning as a Fragment of HOL

Xavier Parent,Christoph Benzmüller

2024-07-07

Abstract:We report on the mechanization of (preference-based) conditional normative reasoning. Our focus is on Aqvist's system E for conditional obligation, and its extensions. Our mechanization is achieved via a shallow semantical embedding in Isabelle/HOL. We consider two possible uses of the framework. The first one is as a tool for meta-reasoning about the considered logic. We employ it for the automated verification of deontic correspondences (broadly conceived) and related matters, analogous to what has been previously achieved for the modal logic cube. The equivalence is automatically verified in one direction, leading from the property to the axiom. The second use is as a tool for assessing ethical arguments. We provide a computer encoding of a well-known paradox (or impossibility theorem) in population ethics, Parfit's repugnant conclusion. While some have proposed overcoming the impossibility theorem by abandoning the presupposed transitivity of ''better than'', our formalisation unveils a less extreme approach, suggesting among other things the option of weakening transitivity suitably rather than discarding it entirely. Whether the presented encoding increases or decreases the attractiveness and persuasiveness of the repugnant conclusion is a question we would like to pass on to philosophy and ethics.

Logic in Computer Science,Artificial Intelligence,Symbolic Computation
Preference, Priorities and Belief

Dick de Jongh,Fenrong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2593-7_4

2009-01-01

Abstract:In this paper we consider preference over objects. We show how this preference can be derived from priorities, properties of these objects, a concept which is initially from optimality theory. We do this both in the case when an agent has complete information and in the case when an agent only has beliefs about the properties. After the single agent case we also consider the multi-agent case. In each of these cases, we construct preference logics, some of them extending the standard logic of belief. This leads to interesting connections between preference and beliefs. We strengthen the usual completeness results for logics of this kind to representation theorems. The representation theorems describe the reasoning that is valid for preference relations that have been obtained from priorities. In the multi-agent case, these representation theorems are strengthened to the special cases of cooperative and competitive agents. We study preference change with regard to changes of the priority sequence, and change of beliefs. We apply the dynamic epistemic logic approach, and in consequence reduction axioms are presented. We conclude with some possible directions for future work.
A Logical Approach to Doxastic Causal Reasoning.

Kaibo Xie,Qingyu He,Fenrong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51777-8_8

2024-01-01

Abstract:Belief revision and causality play an important role in many applications, typically, in the study of database update mechanisms and data dependence. New contributions on causal reasoning are continuously added to the pioneering works by Pearl, Halpern and others. Though there is a long tradition of modeling belief revision in philosophical logic, the entanglement between belief revision and causal reasoning has not yet been fully studied from a logical view. In this paper, we propose a new formal logic for doxastic causal reasoning. With examples, we illustrate that our framework explains the rational way of belief revision based on causal reasoning. We further study the general properties of the logic. A complete axiomatization, as well as a decidability result, will be given. In addition, we believe our work will shed light on understanding the relation between qualitative and quantitative approaches toward (causal) dependence in general.
Dynamic Logic of Legal Competences

Huimin Dong,Olivier Roy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-021-09340-z

2021-10-09

Abstract:We propose a new formalization of legal competences, and in particular for the Hohfeldian categories of power and immunity, through a deontic reinterpretation of dynamic epistemic logic. We argue that this logic explicitly captures the norm-changing character of legal competences while providing a sophisticated reduction of the latter to static normative positions. The logic is completely axiomatizable, and we apply it to a concrete case in German contract law to illustrate that it can capture the distinction between legal ability and legal permissibility.

Logic in Computer Science,Artificial Intelligence

Deontic Reasoning

Defeasible deontic logic: arguing about permission and obligation

Deontic Logic And Preference Change

Prioritized Norms in Formal Argumentation

From Classical to Non-monotonic Deontic Logic Using ASPIC$$^+$$

Priority Structures in Deontic Logic

Reasoning in Social Settings

Deontic Meaning Making in Legislative Discourse

Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic

Doxastic Preference Logic over Propositions

Proof Theory and Decision Procedures for Deontic STIT Logics

Non-monotonic Reasoning and Argumentation System

Impossible and Conflicting Obligations in Justification Logic

Reasoning about Social Choice Functions

Value-based Practical Reasoning: Modal Logic + Argumentation

A Defeasible Deontic Calculus for Resolving Norm Conflicts

Explicit non-normal modal logic

Normative Conditional Reasoning as a Fragment of HOL

Preference, Priorities and Belief

A Logical Approach to Doxastic Causal Reasoning.

Dynamic Logic of Legal Competences