Supererogation: Evidence for Exhaustivity in Deontic Reasoning

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
WooJin Chung
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning

Deontic Reasoning, Mental Models Theory and Traffic Signs Information

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Vargas ◽  
Sergio Moreno-Rios ◽  
Candida Castro ◽  
Geoffrey Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Mental Models ◽  
Traffic Signs ◽  
Deontic Reasoning ◽  
Mental Models Theory

scholarly journals Mīmāṃsā deontic reasoning using specificity: a proof theoretic approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Lellmann ◽  
Francesca Gulisano ◽  
Agata Ciabattoni
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Logic ◽  
Sequent Calculus ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Deontic Reasoning ◽  
Complexity Results ◽  
Restricted Form ◽  
Philosophical School ◽  
Decidability And Complexity ◽  
Potential Use

Abstract Over the course of more than two millennia the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā has thoroughly analyzed normative statements. In this paper we approach a formalization of the deontic system which is applied but never explicitly discussed in Mīmāṃsā to resolve conflicts between deontic statements by giving preference to the more specific ones. We first extend with prohibitions and recommendations the non-normal deontic logic extracted in Ciabattoni et al. (in: TABLEAUX 2015, volume 9323 of LNCS, Springer, 2015) from Mīmāṃsā texts, obtaining a multimodal dyadic version of the deontic logic $$\mathsf {MD}$$ MD . Sequent calculus is then used to close a set of prima-facie injunctions under a restricted form of monotonicity, using specificity to avoid conflicts. We establish decidability and complexity results, and investigate the potential use of the resulting system for Mīmāṃsā philosophy and, more generally, for the formal interpretation of normative statements.

Deontic Reasoning

2011 ◽  
pp. 141-160
Author(s):  
Fenrong Liu
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning

Evidence for the Innateness of Deontic Reasoning

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
DENISE DELLAROSA CUMMINS
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning

DEFEASIBLE DEONTIC REASONING

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (1,2) ◽  
pp. 125-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Thorne McCarty
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning

Annotated Semantics for Defeasible Deontic Reasoning

2001 ◽  
pp. 470-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumi Nakamatsu ◽  
Jair Minoro Abe ◽  
Atsuyuki Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning

scholarly journals Deontic Moral Reasoning Task

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-506
Author(s):  
Mislav Sudić ◽  
Pavle Valerjev ◽  
Josip Ćirić
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Abstract Reasoning ◽  
Reasoning Task ◽  
Confidence Levels ◽  
Deontic Reasoning ◽  
Moral Content ◽  
Rule Type

Domain theory suggests that moral rules and conventions are perceived differently and elicit a different response. A special procedure was designed to test this hypothesis in a laboratory setting using a deontic reasoning task. The goal was to gain insight into the cognitive and metacognitive processes of deontic reasoning from simple deontic premises. In the 3x2x2 within-subjects design, we varied rule-content (moral, conventional, abstract), rule-type (obligation, permission) and the induced dilemma (punishment dilemma, reward dilemma). Participants (N = 78) were presented with 12 laws. After memorizing a law, eight cases were presented to participants so that they make a quick judgment. Participants were tasked with punishing rule-violators, ignoring rule-conformists, and rewarding rule-supererogation. Response times (RT) and accuracy were measured for each judgment, and final confidence was measured after a set of judgments. No differences were expected between rule-types, except for superior performance for moral content and punishment dilemmas. RT correlated negatively with confidence levels, while accuracy correlated positively. Moral reasoning was more accurate than conventional and abstract reasoning, and produced higher confidence levels. Better performance was found for punishment dilemmas than reward dilemmas, likely due to the presence of a cheater-detection module; but the differences were not found in moral reasoning. Moral reasoning was also independent of rule-type, while conventional and abstract reasoning produced superior performance in obligation-type than in permission-type rules. A large drop-off in accuracy was detected for rules that allowed undesirable behaviour, a phenomenon we termed the "deontic blind spot". However, this blind spot was not present in moral reasoning. Three lines of evidence indicate a qualitative difference between the moral and other deontic domains: (1) performance for moral content was independent of rule-type, (2) moral content produced an equal activation of violator- and altruist-detection modules, and (3) moral content produces higher levels of confidence.

scholarly journals Deontic Reasoning for Legal Ontologies

2019 ◽  
pp. 209-224
Author(s):  
Cheikh Kacfah Emani ◽  
Yannis Haralambous
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning ◽  
Legal Ontologies

Deontic reasoning as a target of selection: Reply to Astington and Dack

2013 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 970-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Dellarosa Cummins
Keyword(s):  
Deontic Reasoning
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document