Abstract
In this paper we introduce some new operators into our framework that make it possible to reason about decisions and commitments to do actions. In our framework, a decision leads to an intention to do an action. The decision in itself does not change the state of the world, but only the relation to possible future worls. A commitment to actually perform the intended action changes the deontic state of the world such that the intended action becomes obligated. Of course, the obligated action may never actually occur. In our semantic structure, we use static (ought-to-be) and dynamic (ought-to-do) obligation operators. The static operator resembles the classical conception of obligation as truth in ideal worlds, except that it takes the current state as well as the past history of the world into account. This is necessary because it allows us to compare the way a state is actually reached with the way we committed ourselves to reach it. We show that some situations that could formerly not be expressed easily in deontic logic can be described in a natural way using the extended logic described in this paper.
The research of J.-J.Ch.Meyer and R.J.Wieringa is partially supported by ESPRIT BRA 8319 ModelAge.
The research of R. Kuiper is partially supported by ESPRIT BRA P 6021 REACT.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C.J. Date. An introduction to database systems. Addison-Wesley, Amsterdam, 1995.
J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum. Temporal Reasoning over Deontic Specification. In Journal of Logic and Computation, 1 (3), 1991.
Ph. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Intention is Choice with Commitment. In Artificial Intelligence, 42, 1990, pages 213–261.
F. Santos and J. Carmo. A Deontic Logic Representation of Contractual Obligations. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, pp. 364–382, Amsterdam, 1991.
D. Harel. First Order Dynamic Logic. LNCS 68 Springer, 1979.
J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. In Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol.29, pages 109–136, 1988.
G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic. In Mind, vol.60, pages 1–15, 1951.
L. Åqvist. Deontic logic. In D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic II, pages 605–714. Reidel, 1984.
F. Dignum and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Negations of transactions and their use in the specification of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In M. Kwiatkowska, M.W. Shields, and R.M. Thomas, editors, Semantics for Concurrency, Leicester 1990, pages 61–80, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
F. Dignum. Using transactions in integrity constraints. In Workshop on Applied Logic, Amsterdam, 1992.
J.W. de Bakker, J.N Kok, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, E.-R. Olderog, and J.I. Zucker. Contrasting themes in the semantics of imperative concurrency. In J.W. de Bakker, W.P. de Roever, and G. Rozenberg, editors, Current Trends in Concurrency: Overviews and Tutorials, pages 51–121. LNCS 224 Springer, Berlin, 1986.
J.C.M. Baeten and W.P. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
M. Broy. A theory for nondeterminism, parallelism, communication and concurrency. In Theoretical Computer Science, vol.45, pages 1–62, 1986.
F. Dignum and J.-J. Ch. Meyer and R. J. Wieringa. A solution to the free choice paradox by contextually permitted actions, in Studia Logica, to be published.
F. Dignum, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, and R. Wieringa. A dynamic logic for reasoning about sub-ideal states. In J. Breuker, editor, ECAI workshop on Artificial Normative Reasoning, pages 79–92, Amsterdam, 1994.
E.A. Emerson. Temporal and Modal Logic. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 995–1072, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989.
A.R. Anderson. Some nasty problems in the formalization of ethics. In Noôs, vol. 1, pages 345–360. 1967.
J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A simple solution to the ‘deepest’ paradox in deontic logic. In Logique et Analyse, Nouvelle Série, vol.30, pages 81–90, 1987.
R. Wieringa, H. Weigand, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, and F. Dignum. The inheritance of dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. In Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 3, pages 393–428. Baltzer A.G., 1991.
J.R. Searle. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. 1969.
J.R. Searle and D. Vanderveken. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press. 1985.
B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. How to motivate your agents. On making promises that you can keep to appear as technical report of the RUU, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 British Computer Society
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dignum, F., Meyer, JJ.C., Wieringa, R.J., Kuiper, R. (1996). A Modal Approach to Intentions, Commitments and Obligations: Intention plus Commitment yields Obligation. In: Brown, M.A., Carmo, J. (eds) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Workshops in Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1488-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1488-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-76015-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-1488-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive