Dynamic Normative Reasoning Under Uncertainty: How to Distinguish Between Obligations Under Uncertainty and Prima Facie Obligations (bibtex)
by L. van der Torre, Y. Tan
Abstract:
The deontic update semantics is a dynamic semantics for prescriptive obligations based on Veltman's update semantics, in which the dynamic evaluation of conflicts of hierarchic obligations naturally leads to defeasibility. In this paper we use this dynamic semantics to study the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic. For example, consider a defeasible obligation `ff ought to be done' together with the fact `:ff is done' under uncertainty. Is there an exception of the normality claim, or is it a violation of the obligation? We show that to answer this question a distinction has to be made between `normally ff ought to be done' and `prima facie ff ought to be done.'
Reference:
Dynamic Normative Reasoning Under Uncertainty: How to Distinguish Between Obligations Under Uncertainty and Prima Facie Obligations (L. van der Torre, Y. Tan), Chapter in Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol 6: Agents, Reasoning and Dynamics (D.M. Gabbay, Ph. Smets, eds.), Kluwer, 2001.
Bibtex Entry:
@InCollection{Torre2001a,
  Title                    = {Dynamic Normative Reasoning Under Uncertainty: How to Distinguish Between Obligations Under Uncertainty and Prima Facie Obligations},
  Author                   = {van der Torre, L. and Tan, Y.},
  Booktitle                = {Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol 6: Agents, Reasoning and Dynamics},
  Publisher                = {Kluwer},
  Year                     = {2001},
  Editor                   = {Gabbay, D.M. and Smets, Ph.},
  Pages                    = {267-297},

  Abstract                 = {The deontic update semantics is a dynamic semantics for prescriptive obligations based on Veltman's update semantics, in which the dynamic evaluation of conflicts of hierarchic obligations naturally leads to defeasibility. In this paper we use this dynamic semantics to study the diagnostic problem of defeasible deontic logic. For example, consider a defeasible obligation `ff ought to be done' together with the fact `:ff is done' under uncertainty. Is there an exception of the normality claim, or is it a violation of the obligation? We show that to answer this question a distinction has to be made between `normally ff ought to be done' and `prima facie ff ought to be done.'},
  Bdsk-url-1               = {http://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/drums00.ps.Z},
  Date-modified            = {2011-12-20 17:13:30 +0100},
  Timestamp                = {2013.07.26},
  Url                      = {http://icr.uni.lu/leonvandertorre/papers/drums00.ps.Z}
}
Powered by bibtexbrowser