Alternative Semantics for Normative Reasoning with an Application to Regret and Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2021.023Keywords
deontic logic, normative reasoning, propositional synonymy, regret, relating semantics, responsibilityAbstract
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.
References
Braham, M., and M. Van Hees, 2012, “An anatomy of moral responsibility”, Mind 121 (483): 601–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzs081
Canavotto, I., 2020. “Where responsibility takes you”, PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Faroldi, F., 2014, The Normative Structure of Responsibility, College Publications, Milton Keynes.
Frege, G., 1892, “Über Sinn und Bedeutung”, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.
Giliker, P., 2010, Vicarious Liability in Tort: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779008
Glavaničová, D., and M. Pascucci, 2019, “Formal analysis of responsibility attribution in a multimodal framework”, pages 36–51 in M. Baldoni, M. Dastani, B. Liao, Y. Sakurai and R. Zalila Wenkstern (eds.), PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11873, Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33792-6_3
Honoré, A. M., 1999, Responsibility and Fault, Hart Publishing, Oxford–Portland.
Jarmużek, T., 2020, “Relating semantics as fine-grained semantics for intensional propositional logics”, pages 13–30 in A. Giordani and J. Malinowski (eds.), Logic in High Definition. Current Issues in Logical Semantics, Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53487-5_2
Jarmużek, T., and M. Klonowski, 2020, “On logic of strictly-deontic modalities. A semantic and tableau approach”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 29 (3): 335–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2020.010
Pietruszczak, A., 2009, “Simplified Kripke style semantics for some very weak modal logics”. Logic and Logical Philosophy 18 (3-4): 271–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2009.013
Rantala, V., 1982, “Quantified modal logic. Non-normal worlds and propositional attitudes”, Studia Logica 41 (1): 41–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00373492
Raz, J., 2011, From Normativity to Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/978099693818.001.0001
Sedlár, I., 2021, “Hyperintensional logics for everyone”, Synthese 198 (2): 933–956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02076-7
van Benthem, J., 1982, The Logic of Time, Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9868-7
Watson, G., 2004, Agency and Answerability, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272273.001.0001
White, T. N., and S. D. Baum, 2017, “Liability for present and future robotics technology”, pages 66–79 in P. Lin, K. Abney and R. Jenkins (eds.), Robot Ethics 2.0, Oxford University Press, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190652951.003.0005
Williams, B., 1981, Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165860
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Daniela Glavaniˇcová, Matteo Pascucci
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 621
Number of citations: 0
