About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 A.I. & L. 1 (2006)

handle is hein.journals/artinl14 and id is 1 raw text is: Artificial Intelligence and Law (2006) 14: 1-34 © Springer 2006 DOI 10.1007/s10506-005-5081-x Deontic logics for prioritized imperatives JORG HANSEN Institut fur Philosophie, Universitdt Leipzig, Beethovenstraie 15, D-04107, Leipzig, Germany e-mail: jhansen@uni-leipzig.de Abstract. When a conflict of duties arises, a resolution is often sought by use of an ordering of priority or importance. This paper examines how such a conflict resolution works, compares mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature, and gives preference to one developed by Brewka and Nebel. I distinguish between two cases - that some conflicts may remain unresolved, and that a priority ordering can be determined that resolves all - and provide semantics and axiomatic systems for accordingly defined dyadic deontic operators. Keywords: deontic logic, logic of imperatives, priorities 1. Introduction W. D. Ross (1930) argued that whenever there appears to be a conflict of duties, through careful study of all aspects of the situation one will arrive at the conclusion - or rather: the considered opinion - that one of these duties is more pressing than others, and this duty is then one's duty sans phrase, whereas the others were prima facie only. Ross gives the following example: EXAMPLE (The road accident). If I have promised to meet afriend at a particular time for some trivial purpose, I should certainly think myself jus- tified in breaking my engagement if by doing so I could prevent a serious accident or bring relief to the victims of one. There are two conflicting obligations: to keep the promise, and to prevent the accident or help its victims. The second takes priority: it is in these circum- stances more of a duty than keeping the appointment. While in the example the determination of the priority ordering seems to rely on a comparison of the outcomes of satisfying or violating the conflicting duties under considerations of utility and possible harm, in the case of legal

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most