Rediscovering the Spirit of Competition: On the Normative Value of the Competitive Process

The paper develops its core argument in 12 sections structured in three parts: I Positive analysis; II Normative proposal; and III Operationalisation. Section B illustrates the traditional justification for the utilitarian perception of competition and analyses its main weaknesses. Section C explores conceptual differences and underlines the fundamental similarities of the two major deontological antitrust schools (Austrian and Ordoliberal). Section D provides some conceptual argumentation for the treatment of competition as a constitutional value. Section E introduces the theoretical framework of value pluralism which reconciles the conflicts between constitutional values. The methodology of value pluralism is applied in order to balance the value of competition with the interests of welfare. Section F opens the second part of the paper. It explores competition as the essence of liberal democracy, claiming that the economic aspects of competition together with its political (elections) and cultural (free speech) elements constitute the core of democratic governance. Accordingly, these values should be protected as a matter of evolutionary choice of society without any utility-based verification. Section G conceptualises the ‘Oroboros dilemma’ of self-destructive freedom and democracy, which is described in the domain of competition by Robert Bork as the ‘antitrust paradox: a policy at war with itself ’. Section H continues the comparative analysis of competition. It explores regulatory practices developed for the protection of free elections (political competition) and free speech (cultural competition) on one hand and economic competition on the other. It reveals the main methodological error of antitrust, which prevents immunisation of some anticompetitive practices from sanctions on non-utilitarian grounds. This section concludes that, unlike its political and cultural counterparts, economic competition is gradually transforming into a purely instrumental consequentialist policy which corresponds neither to the semantics nor even to the syntax of the term ‘competition’. The logic of such transformation is a direct consequence of the above-mentioned methodological inconsistency between economic competition on one hand and the political and cultural aspects of competition on the other. Section I develops the argument that in certain situations anticompetitive agreements are immunised from antitrust sanctions provided that they simultaneously promote competition more than they distort it. This possibility exists in the regulation of the political and cultural aspects of competition, but it is missing in the economic context. The current structure of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not envisage this option. Therefore in practice courts tend to develop indirect ways of granting immunity to undertakings which cannot conform to the rigid utilitarian requirements of Article 101(3) TFEU. While acceptable, this solution is far from optimal. For this reason the section proposes a conceptual amendment of Article 101 TFEU. This proposal is designed as a contribution to the academic debate on the role of the competitive process in antitrust rather than as a direct call for changes in primary European law. Section J clarifies that the proposed deontological benchmark for competition does not diminish the importance of utilitarian values since the proposal merely extends the current regulatory framework without substituting any of its existing parts. The application of the amended Article 101 (3) TFEU would still be based upon the discretion of the decision-maker. The will of the decision-maker (be it the Commission, national authorities or courts) constitutes the central part of this section. It analyses the balancing techniques, developed by the legal and constitutional theories and implements them into the area of antitrust. Section K continues the analysis of the balancing act, dealing specifically with the technique of separation of different values. It proposes a two-step methodology of balancing. The first one is purely value-centric. It artificially isolates each value from all others in order to undertake their independent analysis which helps to understand the internal essence of each value separately. The second consecutive step recontextualises previously isolated values into the main regulatory agenda. This section demonstrates that the present-day regulatory status of competition does not enable it to be in the par-in-parem relationships with other values, because all balancing acts are performed as a one-step analysis: each value is only balanced against the others at the external level, where the one with the higher importance always prevails. This section is designed to provide the operational justification for the normative proposal developed in Section I. The last section summarises the main findings of the paper

Handling Norms in Multi-Agent System by Means of Formal Argumentation

International audienceFormal argumentation is used to enrich and analyse normative multi-agent systems in various ways. In this chapter, we discuss three examples from the literature of handling norms by means of formal argumentation. First, we discuss how existing ways to resolve conflicts among norms using priorities can be represented in formal argumentation, by showing that the so-called Greedy and Reduction approaches can be represented using the weakest and the last link principles respectively. Based on such representation results, formal argumentation can be used to explain the detachment of obligations and permissions from hierarchical normative systems in a new way. Second, we discuss how formal argumentation can be used as a general theory for developing new approaches for normative reasoning, using a dynamic ASPIC-based legal argumentation theory. We show how existing logics of normative systems can be used to analyse such new argumentation systems. Third, we show how argumentation can be used to reason about other challenges in the area of normative multiagent systems as well, by discussing a model for arguing about legal interpretation. In particular, we show how fuzzy logic combined with formal argumentation can be used to reason about the adoption of graded categories and thus address the problem of open texture in normative interpretation. Our aim to discuss these three examples is to inspire new applications of formal argumentation to the challenges of normative reasoning in multiagent systems

Logic Programming and Machine Ethics

Transparency is a key requirement for ethical machines. Verified ethical behavior is not enough to establish justified trust in autonomous intelligent agents: it needs to be supported by the ability to explain decisions. Logic Programming (LP) has a great potential for developing such perspective ethical systems, as in fact logic rules are easily comprehensible by humans. Furthermore, LP is able to model causality, which is crucial for ethical decision making.Comment: In Proceedings ICLP 2020, arXiv:2009.09158. Invited paper for the ICLP2020 Panel on "Machine Ethics". arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1909.0825

Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change

Copyright in each article is held by the authors. Please contact the authors directly for permission to reprint or use this material in any form for any purpose.The biennial workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change (NRAC) has an active and loyal community. Since its inception in 1995, the workshop has been held seven times in conjunction with IJCAI, and has experienced growing success. We hope to build on this success again this eighth year with an interesting and fruitful day of discussion. The areas of reasoning about action, non-monotonic reasoning and belief revision are among the most active research areas in Knowledge Representation, with rich inter-connections and practical applications including robotics, agentsystems, commonsense reasoning and the semantic web. This workshop provides a unique opportunity for researchers from all three fields to be brought together at a single forum with the prime objectives of communicating important recent advances in each field and the exchange of ideas. As these fundamental areas mature it is vital that researchers maintain a dialog through which they can cooperatively explore common links. The goal of this workshop is to work against the natural tendency of such rapidly advancing fields to drift apart into isolated islands of specialization. This year, we have accepted ten papers authored by a diverse international community. Each paper has been subject to careful peer review on the basis of innovation, significance and relevance to NRAC. The high quality selection of work could not have been achieved without the invaluable help of the international Program Committee. A highlight of the workshop will be our invited speaker Professor Hector Geffner from ICREA and UPF in Barcelona, Spain, discussing representation and inference in modern planning. Hector Geffner is a world leader in planning, reasoning, and knowledge representation; in addition to his many important publications, he is a Fellow of the AAAI, an associate editor of the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research and won an ACM Distinguished Dissertation Award in 1990

Current and Future Challenges in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Knowledge Representation and Reasoning is a central, longstanding, and active area of Artificial Intelligence. Over the years it has evolved significantly; more recently it has been challenged and complemented by research in areas such as machine learning and reasoning under uncertainty. In July 2022 a Dagstuhl Perspectives workshop was held on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. The goal of the workshop was to describe the state of the art in the field, including its relation with other areas, its shortcomings and strengths, together with recommendations for future progress. We developed this manifesto based on the presentations, panels, working groups, and discussions that took place at the Dagstuhl Workshop. It is a declaration of our views on Knowledge Representation: its origins, goals, milestones, and current foci; its relation to other disciplines, especially to Artificial Intelligence; and on its challenges, along with key priorities for the next decade