Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning |
| |
Authors: | Henry Prakken |
| |
Institution: | (1) Computer/Law Institute Faculty of Law, Free University, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| |
Abstract: | This paper compares two ways of formalising defeasible deontic reasoning, both based on the view that the issues of conflicting obligations and moral dilemmas should be dealt with from the perspective of nonmonotonic reasoning. The first way is developing a special nonmonotonic logic for deontic statements. This method turns out to have some limitations, for which reason another approach is recommended, viz. combining an already existing nonmonotonic logic with a deontic logic. As an example of this method the language of Reiter's default logic is extended to include modal expressions, after which the argumentation framework in default logic of 20, 22] is used to give a plausible logical analysis of moral dilemmas and prima facie obligations.An earlier version of this article was written while the author was working at the Department of Computing, Imperial College London, supported by ESRC/MRC/SERC Joint Council Initiative Project G9212036. Work on the present version was supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and by Esprit WG 8319 Modelage. I thank one of the referees for his interesting comments. Also, many thanks are due to Marek Sergot for valuable discussions on the topic of this paper. |
| |
Keywords: | deontic reasoning defeasible reasoning moral dilemmas |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|