Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Donald Nute (ed.), Defeasible Deontic Logic

Donald Nute (ed.), Defeasible Deontic Logic 76 BOOK REVIEW paratus that is an important contribution to legal ontology. The papers in Defeasible Deontic Logic aptly illustrate this point. Prima Facie Obligations It is sometimes felt that deontic reasoning is somehow more defeasible than ‘nor- mal’ reasoning, whatever normal reasoning may be. Two phenomena explain this feeling, namely the occurrence of so-called prima facie obligations, and the occur- rence of contrary to duty (CTD) obligations. The name ‘prima facie obligations’ derives, to my knowledge, from Ross (1930, p. 19). Ross suggests to use the expression ‘prima facie duty’ to refer ‘to the characteristic (quite distinct from that of being a duty proper) which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g., the keeping of a promise), of being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time of another kind which is morally significant. Whether an act is a proper or actual duty depends on all the morally significant kinds it is an instance of’. Ross continues to explain that the phrase ‘prima facie duty’ is to some extent misleading. This is, first, because a prima facie duty is not really a duty, but rather http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Donald Nute (ed.), Defeasible Deontic Logic

Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 8 (1) – Oct 3, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/donald-nute-ed-defeasible-deontic-logic-h0Hl4QSeta
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/A:1008338019879
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

76 BOOK REVIEW paratus that is an important contribution to legal ontology. The papers in Defeasible Deontic Logic aptly illustrate this point. Prima Facie Obligations It is sometimes felt that deontic reasoning is somehow more defeasible than ‘nor- mal’ reasoning, whatever normal reasoning may be. Two phenomena explain this feeling, namely the occurrence of so-called prima facie obligations, and the occur- rence of contrary to duty (CTD) obligations. The name ‘prima facie obligations’ derives, to my knowledge, from Ross (1930, p. 19). Ross suggests to use the expression ‘prima facie duty’ to refer ‘to the characteristic (quite distinct from that of being a duty proper) which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g., the keeping of a promise), of being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time of another kind which is morally significant. Whether an act is a proper or actual duty depends on all the morally significant kinds it is an instance of’. Ross continues to explain that the phrase ‘prima facie duty’ is to some extent misleading. This is, first, because a prima facie duty is not really a duty, but rather

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 3, 2004

References