Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
153 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Normative Conditional Reasoning as a Fragment of HOL (2308.10686v4)

Published 21 Aug 2023 in cs.LO, cs.AI, and cs.SC

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.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (42)
  1. Andrews, P. (2002). An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory. Springer.
  2. Åqvist, L. (1987). An Introduction to Deontic logic and the Theory of Normative Systems. Bibliopolis, Naples.
  3. Åqvist, L. (2002). Deontic logic. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 8, pages 147–264. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland, 2nd edition. Originally published in (Gabbay and Guenthner,, 1984, pp. 605–714).
  4. Benzmüller, C. (2019). Universal (meta-)logical reasoning: Recent successes. Science of Computer Programming, 172:48–62.
  5. Systematic verification of the modal logic cube in Isabelle/HOL. In Kaliszyk, C. and Paskevich, A., editors, PxTP 2015, volume 186, pages 27–41, Berlin, Germany. EPTCS.
  6. Åqvist’s dyadic deontic logic E in HOL. Journal of Applied Logics – IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and their Applications (Special Issue: Reasoning for Legal AI), 6(5):733–755.
  7. Embedding and automating conditional logics in classical higher-order logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 66(1-4):257–271.
  8. Designing normative theories for ethical and legal reasoning: Logikey framework, methodology, and tool support. Artificial Intelligence, 287:103348.
  9. Automating public announcement logic with relativized common knowledge as a fragment of HOL in LogiKEy. Journal of Logic and Computation, 33(6):1243–1269.
  10. The inconsistency in Gödel’s ontological argument: A success story for AI in metaphysics. In Kambhampati, S., editor, IJCAI 2016, volume 1-3, pages 936–942. AAAI Press.
  11. Extending Sledgehammer with SMT solvers. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 51(1):109–128.
  12. Hammering towards QED. Journal of Formalized Reasoning, 9(1):101–148.
  13. Nitpick: A counterexample generator for higher-order logic based on a relational model finder. In Kaufmann, M. and Paulson, L. C., editors, ITP 2010, volume 6172 of LNCS, pages 131–146. Springer.
  14. Chellas, B. (1975). Basic conditional logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4(2):pp. 133–153.
  15. Chellas, B. (1980). Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  16. Dyadic obligations: Proofs and countermodels via hypersequents. In Aydogan, R., Criado, N., Lang, J., Sánchez-Anguix, V., and Serramia, M., editors, PRIMA 2022: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 24th International Conference, Valencia, Spain, November 16-18, 2022, Proceedings, volume 13753 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 54–71. Springer.
  17. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume II. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1st edition.
  18. KLMLean 2.0: A theorem prover for KLM logics of nonmonotonic reasoning. In Olivetti, N., editor, Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, pages 238–244, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.
  19. Goble, L. (2004). A proposal for dealing with deontic dilemmas. In Lomuscio, A. and Nute, D., editors, Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pages 74–113, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  20. Goble, L. (2019). Axioms for Hansson’s dyadic deontic logics. Filosofiska Notiser, 6(1):13–61.
  21. Hansson, B. (1969). An analysis of some deontic logics. No𝑢^normal-^𝑢\hat{\mbox{u}}over^ start_ARG u end_ARGs, 3(4):373–398.
  22. A Companion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London.
  23. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44(1-2):167–207.
  24. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell, Oxford.
  25. Luce, R. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, 24:178–191.
  26. Makinson, D. (1993). Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica, 52(3):339–379.
  27. Nortmann, U. (1986). Deontische logik: Die variante der lokalen äquivalenz. Erkenntnis, 6(25):275–318.
  28. Parent, X. (2014). Maximality vs. optimality in dyadic deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(6):1101–1128.
  29. Parent, X. (2015). Completeness of Åqvist’s systems E and F. Review of Symbolic Logic, 8(1):164–177.
  30. Parent, X. (2021). Preference semantics for dyadic deontic logic: a survey of results. In Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., and van der Torre, L., editors, Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, pages 1–70. College Publications, London. UK. Volume 2.
  31. Parent, X. (2022). On some weakened forms of transitivity in the logic of norms (extended abstract). In Giordanni, L. and Casini, G., editors, NMR 2022: 20th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. CEUR-WS.
  32. Parent, X. (2024). On some weakened forms of transitivity in the logic of conditional obligation. Forthcoming in Journal of Philosophical Logic. Supersedes Parent, (2022).
  33. Introduction to Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. College Publications, London.
  34. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
  35. Sahlqvist, H. (1975). Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logic. In Kanger, S., editor, Proceedings of the Third Scandinavian Logic Symposium, volume 82 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, pages 110–143. Elsevier.
  36. Segerberg, K. (1971). Some logics of commitment and obligation. In Hilpinen, R., editor, Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, pages 148–158, Dordrecht. Springer Netherlands.
  37. Sen, A. (1997). Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65(4):745–779.
  38. Shoham, Y. (1988). Reasoning About Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  39. Spohn, W. (1975). An analysis of Hansson’s dyadic deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4(2):237–252.
  40. Solving modal logic problems by translation to higher-order logic. In Herzig, A., Luo, J., and Pardo, P., editors, Logic and Argumentation, pages 25–43, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland.
  41. Temkin, L. S. (1987). Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(2):138–187.
  42. van Benthem, J. (2001). Correspondence theory. In Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F., editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 3, pages 325–408. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now