Alternative Semantics for Normative Reasoning with an Application to Regret and Responsibility

We provide a fine-grained analysis of notions of regret and responsibility (such as agent-regret and individual responsibility) in terms of a language of multimodal logic. This language undergoes a detailed semantic analysis via two sorts of models: (i) relating models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional pertinence, and (ii) synonymy models, which are equipped with a relation of propositional synonymy. We specify a class of strictly relating models and show that each synonymy model can be transformed into an equivalent strictly relating model. Moreover, we define an axiomatic system that captures the notion of validity in the class of all strictly relating models.

Mapping Shari’ah Normative Reasoning Concepts

Within the context of a larger project, in this paper, we discuss one-to-one mapping of the Shari’ah normative concepts of wajib, haram, sunnah, etc., with conventional normative concepts of obligation, prohibition, and permission. The goal of the mapping to gaining a better understanding of the Shari’ah normative concepts and what deontic effects they generate when applied, and what consequences can be attained through the actions as compared to the Western normative concepts. Existing literature lacks such understanding of the correspondence between the two normative systems. The mapping shows conceptual overlapping between the concepts, yet the two types of systems should be separated from each other in terms of the philosophy, context, and the consequences of the Islamic normative systems as the expression of the divine will.

Dischargeable Obligations in the 𝒮CIFF Framework

Abductive Logic Programming (ALP) has been proven very effective for formalizing societies of agents, commitments and norms, in particular by mapping the most common deontic operators (obligation, prohibition, permission) to abductive expectations. In our previous works, we have shown that ALP is a suitable framework for representing norms. Normative reasoning and query answering were accommodated by the same abductive proof procedure, named 𝒮CIFF. In this work, we introduce a defeasible flavour in this framework, in order to possibly discharge obligations in some scenarios. Abductive expectations can also be qualified as dischargeable, in the new, extended syntax. Both declarative and operational semantics are improved accordingly, and proof of soundness is given under syntax allowedness conditions Moreover, the dischargement itself might be proved invalid, or incoherent with the rules, due to new knowledge provided later on. In such a case, a discharged expectation might be reinstated and hold again after some evidence is given. We extend the notion of dischargement to take into consideration also the reinstatement of expectations. The expressiveness and power of the extended framework, named 𝒮CIFF𝒟, is shown by modeling and reasoning upon a fragment of the Japanese Civil Code. In particular, we consider a case study concerning manifestations of intention and their rescission (Section II of the Japanese Civil Code).

Rationalising Framing Effects: At Least One Task for Empirically Informed Philosophy

Human judgements are affected by the words in which information is presented —or ‘framed’. According to the standard gloss, ‘framing effects’ reveal counter-normative reasoning, unduly affected by positive/negative language. One challenge to this view suggests that number expressions in alternative framing conditions are interpreted as denoting lower-bounded (minimum) quantities. However, it is unclear whether the resulting explanation is a rationalising one. I argue that a number expression should only be interpreted lower-boundedly if this is what it actually means. I survey how number expressions might be assigned lower-bounded meanings, due to their conventional semantics or pragmatic enrichment in context. I argue that deciding between these possibilities requires foundational philosophical input.

Revisionism Gone Awry: Since When Hasn't Hume Been a Sceptic?

In this paper, we argue that revisionary theories about the nature and extent of Hume's scepticism are mistaken. We claim that the source of Hume's pervasive scepticism is his empiricism. As earlier readings of Hume's Treatise claim, Hume was a sceptic – and a radical one. Our position faces one enormous problem. How is it possible to square Hume's claims about normative reasoning with his radical scepticism? Despite the fact that Hume thinks that causal (inductive) reasoning is irrational, he explicitly claims that one can and should make normative claims about beliefs being ‘reasonable’. We show that even though Hume thinks that our causal (inductive) beliefs are rationally unjustified, there is nonetheless a ‘relative’ sense of justification available to Hume and that he relies on this ‘relative’ sense in those places where he makes normative claims about what we ought to believe.

The Psychology of American Racism

American racism is alive and well. In this essay, we amass a large body of classic and contemporary research across multiple areas of psychology (e.g., cognitive, developmental, social), as well as the broader social sciences (e.g., sociology, communication studies, public policy), and humanities (e.g., critical race studies, history, philosophy), to outline seven factors that contribute to American racism: 1) Categories, which organize people into distinct groups by promoting essentialist and normative reasoning, 2) Factions, which trigger ingroup loyalty and intergroup competition and threat, 3) Segregation, which hardens racist perceptions, preferences, and beliefs through the denial of intergroup contact, 4) Hierarchy, which emboldens people to think, feel, and behave in racist ways, 5) Power, which legislates racism on both micro and macro levels, 6) Media, which legitimizes overrepresented and idealized representations of White Americans while marginalizing and minimizing people of color, and 7) Passivism, such that overlooking or denying the existence of racism obscures this reality, encouraging others to do the same and allowing racism to fester and persist. We argue that these and other factors support American racism, and conclude with suggestions for future research, particularly in the domain of identifying ways to promote anti-racism.

Paternalistic aims and (mis)attributions of agency: What the over-punishment of Black girls in US classrooms teaches us about just school discipline

In this article, we explore the interrelated phenomena of teachers’ paternalistic aims and their misattributions of the agency of their students within particular schooling contexts of systemic racial injustice in the United States. We argue that, because teachers in these contexts assess agency in patterned, predictable ways that stem from – and reify – preexisting unjust patterns of oppression, teachers are unreliable evaluators of the conditions necessary for just punishment. To build this argument, we explore a complex case in which authorities regularly fail to meet these conditions: the punishment of Black girls in low-income, urban, predominantly non-White primary and secondary schools in the United States. Through our analysis, we offer a new concept, excess agency misattribution, which raises serious questions about subjective justifications for punishment in contexts of entrenched injustice. By delineating how the perceptions of teachers influence both the putative justifying aims and targeted recipients of punishment, we demonstrate how the existing terrain of school punishment practices ought to affect our normative reasoning about the fairness of punishment in these contexts.