A Realistic View on Normative Conflicts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2020.001Keywords
action, deontic logic, deontic value, multivalued logic, normative conflictAbstract
Kulicki and Trypuz (2016) introduced three systems of multi-valued deontic action logic to handle normative conflicts. The first system suggests a pessimistic view on normative conflicts, according to which any conflicting option represents something forbidden; the second system suggests an optimistic view, according to which any conflicting option represents something obligatory; finally, the third system suggests a neutral view, according to which any conflicting option represents something that is neither obligatory nor forbidden. The aim of the present paper is to propose a fourth system in this family, which comes with a realistic view on normative conflicts: a normative conflict remains unsolved unless it is generated by two or more normative sources that can be compared. In accordance with this, we will provide a more refined formal framework for the family of systems at issue, which allows for explicit reference to sources of norms. Conflict resolution is thus a consequence of a codified hierarchy of normative sources.
References
Beirlaen, M. , C. Straßer, and J. Meheus, 2013, “An inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic for normative conflicts”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 ((2): 285–315. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9221-3
Brink, D.O., 1994, “Moral conflict and its structure”, Philosophical Review 103 (2): 215–247. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2185737
da Costa, N.C., and W.A. Carnielli, 1986, “On paraconsistent deontic logic”, Philosophia 16 (3): 293–305. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02379748
Dyrkolbotn, S.K., T. Pedersen and J. Broersen, 2016, “Responsibilities and moral dilemmas in abductive default logic”, pages 64–79 in O. Roy, A. Tamminga and M. Willer (eds.), Proceedings of DEON 2016.
Glavaničová, D., 2017, “Review of ‘Proceedings of DEON 2016’, Organon F 24 (2): 254–261.
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. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33792-6_3
Goble, L., 2013, “Prima facie norms, normative conflicts and dilemmas”, pages 241–351 in D. Gabbay et al. (eds.), Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems.
Goble, L., 2014, “Deontic logic (adapted) for normative conflicts”, Logic Journal of the IGPL 22 (2): 206–235. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzt022
Hill, H.H., 1987, “A functional taxonomy of normative conflict”, Law and Philosophy 6 (2): 227–247. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00145430
Jacquette, D., 1996, “Many-valued deontic predications”, Logique et Analyse 155–156: 243–254.
Kulicki, P., 2014, “A note on the adequacy of Jerzy Kalinowski’s K1 logic”, Bulletin of the Section of Logic 43 (3/4): 183–190.
Kulicki, P., and R. Trypuz, 2016, “Multivalued logics for conflicting norms”, pages 123–138 in O. Roy, A. Tamminga and M. Willer (eds.), Proceedings of DEON 2016.
Kulicki, P., and R. Trypuz, 2019, “Judging actions on the basis of prima facie duties. The case of self-driving cars”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 28 (4): 767–787. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2019.006
Nute D. (ed.), 1997, Defeasible Deontic Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., 1984, “‘Ought’ conversationally implies ‘Can’”, Philosophical Review 93 (2): 249–261. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2184585
von Wright, G.H., 1951, “Deontic logic”, Mind 60 (237): 1–15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/LX.237.1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 993
Number of citations: 1
