Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
L. Cholvy, C. Garion (2001)
An Attempt to Adapt a Logic of Conditional Preferences for Reasoning with Contrary-To-DutiesFundam. Informaticae, 48
D Gabbay, O Rodrigues, A Russo (2010)
Revision Acceptability and Context
J. Carmo, Andrew Jones (2002)
Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duties
D. Gabbay, O. Rodrigues, A. Russo (2010)
Revision, Acceptability and Context - Theoretical and Algorithmic Aspects
D. Gabbay, G. Pigozzi, J. Woods (2003)
Controlled Revision - An algorithmic approach for belief revisionJ. Log. Comput., 13
H. Prakken, M. Sergot (1996)
Contrary-to-duty obligationsStudia Logica, 57
D. Basin, Marcello D'Agostino, D. Gabbay, S. Matthews, L. Viganò (2000)
Labelled deduction
D Gabbay (1996)
Labelled Deductive Systems
G. Smith (1976)
ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIAPhilosophical Books, 17
H Prakken, M Sergot (1997)
Defeasible Deontic Logic. Synthese Library, Vol 263.
D. Gabbay, J. Woods (2003)
Chapter 13 – Labelled Deductive Systems, 1
(2010)
Reactive standard deontic logic (draft
D. Gabbay (2008)
Reactive Kripke Models and Contrary to Duty Obligations
D Gabbay (2008)
Deon 2008. Deontic Logic in Computer Science, LNAI 5076.
(2008)
Deontic logic in computer science, LNAI 5076
J Carmo, AJI Jones (2002)
Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol 8.
Jörg Hansen (2004)
Conflicting imperatives and dyadic deontic logic
Leendert Torre, Yao-Hua Tan (1999)
Contrary‐to‐duty reasoning with preference‐based dyadic obligationsAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 27
H. Prakken, M. Sergot (1997)
Dyadic Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duty Obligations
(2010)
Talmudic deontic logic
This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: O T A Talmudic obligation F T A Talmudic prohibition F D A Standard deontic prohibition O D A Standard deontic obligation. In classical logic one would have expected that deontic obligation O D is definable by $$O_DA \equiv F_D\neg A$$ and that O T and F T are connected by $$O_TA \equiv F_T\neg A$$ This is not the case in the Talmud for the T (Talmudic) operators, though it does hold for the D operators. We must change our underlying logic. We have to regard {O T , F T } and {O D , F D } as two sets of operators, where O T and F T are independent of one another and where we have some connections between the two sets. We shall list the types of obligation patterns appearing in the Talmud and develop an intuitionistic deontic logic to accommodate them. We shall compare Talmudic deontic logic with modern deontic logic.
Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals
Published: Jul 15, 2011
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.