Designing Normative Theories for Ethical and Legal Reasoning: LogiKEy Framework, Methodology, and Tool Support

A framework and methodology---termed LogiKEy---for the design and engineering of ethical reasoners, normative theories and deontic logics is presented. The overall motivation is the development of suitable means for the control and governance of intelligent autonomous systems. LogiKEy's unifying formal framework is based on semantical embeddings of deontic logics, logic combinations and ethico-legal domain theories in expressive classic higher-order logic (HOL). This meta-logical approach enables the provision of powerful tool support in LogiKEy: off-the-shelf theorem provers and model finders for HOL are assisting the LogiKEy designer of ethical intelligent agents to flexibly experiment with underlying logics and their combinations, with ethico-legal domain theories, and with concrete examples---all at the same time. Continuous improvements of these off-the-shelf provers, without further ado, leverage the reasoning performance in LogiKEy. Case studies, in which the LogiKEy framework and methodology has been applied and tested, give evidence that HOL's undecidability often does not hinder efficient experimentation.Comment: 50 pages; 10 figure

Clause-Type, Force, and Normative Judgment in the Semantics of Imperatives

I argue that imperatives express contents that are both cognitively and semantically related to, but nevertheless distinct from, modal propositions. Imperatives, on this analysis, semantically encode features of planning that are modally specified. Uttering an imperative amounts to tokening this feature in discourse, and thereby proffering it for adoption by the audience. This analysis deals smoothly with the problems afflicting Portner's Dynamic Pragmatic account and Kaufmann's Modal account. It also suggests an appealing reorientation of clause-type theorizing, in which the cognitive act of updating on a typed sentence plays a central role in theorizing about both its semantics and role in discourse

Worlds and Objects of Epistemic Space : A study of Jaakko Hintikka's modal semantics

This study focuses on meaning and knowledge by assessing a distinctive view regarding their relation, namely the modal view of Jaakko Hintikka. The development of this view has not been previously scrutinized. By paying close attention to the texts of Hintikka, I show that, despite the extensive deployment of mathematical tools, the articulation of the view remained intuitive and vague. The study calls attention to several points at which Hintikka omits relevant details or disregards foundational questions. Attempts are made to articulate Hintikka’s certain ideas in a more specific manner, and new problems that result are identified. The central claim argued for is that Hintikka’s exposition was unsatisfactory in many respects and hence the view, as it stands, falls short in its explanatory scope compared to current theories in the intersection of logic, semantics, and epistemology. However, I argue that, despite its shortcomings, the prospects of the modal view are not exhausted. This is verified by introducing a new interpretation of the framework and by sketching new applications relevant in philosophy of language and in epistemology. It is also pointed out that certain early advances of the view closely resemble, and therefore anticipate, the central tenets of the currently influential two-dimensional approaches in logic and semantics.Tutkimus paneutuu merkityksen ja tiedon käsitteisiin tarkastelemalla Jaakko Hintikan työtä modaalisen semantiikan parissa. Tutkimus osoittaa, että Hintikka jätti modaalisen semantiikan kehitystyössään avoimeksi useita perustavia kysymyksiä ja yksityiskohtia. Tutkimuksessa pyritään artikuloimaan täsmällisemmin joitakin Hintikan näkemyksiä, ja tunnistetaan uusia syntyviä ongelmia. Keskeisenä väitteenä on, että Hintikan teoreettinen työ jäi monilta osin epätyydyttäväksi, ja siten hänen modaalinen näkemyksensä ei yllä selitysvoimaltaan ja sovelluspotentiaaliltaan samalle tasolle kuin nykyiset filosofiset teoriat, jotka operoivat logiikan, semantiikan ja epistemologian risteyskohdissa. Tästä huolimatta tutkimuksessa argumentoidaan, että Hintikan teoreettinen viitekehys tarjoaa myös uusia kiinnostavia näköaloja. Tämä todennetaan tarjoamalla Hintikan viitekehykselle uusi tulkinta, ja soveltamalla sitä uusiin kielifilosofisiin kysymyksiin. Tutkimus nostaa myös esiin kirjallisuudessa ohitetun tosiasian, että Hintikan työ ennakoi tärkeällä tavalla nykyisin vaikutusvaltaisia kaksi-dimensionaalisia lähestymistapoja logiikassa ja semantiikassa

Harnessing Higher-Order (Meta-)Logic to Represent and Reason with Complex Ethical Theories

The computer-mechanization of an ambitious explicit ethical theory, Gewirth's Principle of Generic Consistency, is used to showcase an approach for representing and reasoning with ethical theories exhibiting complex logical features like alethic and deontic modalities, indexicals, higher-order quantification, among others. Harnessing the high expressive power of Church's type theory as a meta-logic to semantically embed a combination of quantified non-classical logics, our work pushes existing boundaries in knowledge representation and reasoning. We demonstrate that intuitive encodings of complex ethical theories and their automation on the computer are no longer antipodes.Comment: 14 page

Modal logic and philosophy

Modal logic is one of philosophy’s many children. As a mature adult it has moved out of the parental home and is nowadays straying far from its parent. But the ties are still there: philosophy is important to modal logic, modal logic is important for philosophy. Or, at least, this is a thesis we try to defend in this chapter. Limitations of space have ruled out any attempt at writing a survey of all the work going on in our field—a book would be needed for that. Instead, we have tried to select material that is of interest in its own right or exemplifies noteworthy features in interesting ways. Here are some themes that have guided us throughout the writing: • The back-and-forth between philosophy and modal logic. There has been a good deal of give-and-take in the past. Carnap tried to use his modal logic to throw light on old philosophical questions, thereby inspiring others to continue his work and still others to criticise it. He certainly provoked Quine, who in his turn provided—and continues to provide—a healthy challenge to modal logicians. And Kripke’s and David Lewis’s philosophies are connected, in interesting ways, with their modal logic. Analytic philosophy would have been a lot different without modal logic! • The interpretation problem. The problem of providing a certain modal logic with an intuitive interpretation should not be conflated with the problem of providing a formal system with a model-theoretic semantics. An intuitively appealing model-theoretic semantics may be an important step towards solving the interpretation problem, but only a step. One may compare this situation with that in probability theory, where definitions of concepts like ‘outcome space’ and ‘random variable’ are orthogonal to questions about “interpretations” of the concept of probability. • The value of formalisation. Modal logic sets standards of precision, which are a challenge to—and sometimes a model for—philosophy. Classical philosophical questions can be sharpened and seen from a new perspective when formulated in a framework of modal logic. On the other hand, representing old questions in a formal garb has its dangers, such as simplification and distortion. • Why modal logic rather than classical (first or higher order) logic? The idioms of modal logic—today there are many!—seem better to correspond to human ways of thinking than ordinary extensional logic. (Cf. Chomsky’s conjecture that the NP + VP pattern is wired into the human brain.) In his An Essay in Modal Logic (1951) von Wright distinguished between four kinds of modalities: alethic (modes of truth: necessity, possibility and impossibility), epistemic (modes of being known: known to be true, known to be false, undecided), deontic (modes of obligation: obligatory, permitted, forbidden) and existential (modes of existence: universality, existence, emptiness). The existential modalities are not usually counted as modalities, but the other three categories are exemplified in three sections into which this chapter is divided. Section 1 is devoted to alethic modal logic and reviews some main themes at the heart of philosophical modal logic. Sections 2 and 3 deal with topics in epistemic logic and deontic logic, respectively, and are meant to illustrate two different uses that modal logic or indeed any logic can have: it may be applied to already existing (non-logical) theory, or it can be used to develop new theory

Ontology of sentential moods

In this paper ontological implications of the Barcan formula and its converse will be discussed at the conceptual and technical level. The thesis that will be defended is that sentential moods are not ontologically neutral since the rejection of ontological implications of Barcan formula and its converse is a condition of a possibility of the imperative mood. The paper is divided into four sections. In the first section a systematization of semantical systems of quantified modal logic is introduced for the purpose of making explicit their ontological presuppositions. In this context Jadacki's ontological difference between being and existence is discussed and analyzed within the framework of hereby proposed system of quantified modal logic. The second section discusses ontological implications of the Barcan formula and its converse within the system accommodating the difference between being and existence. The third section presents a proof of incompatibility of the Barcan formula and its converse with the use of imperatives. In the concluding section, a thesis on logical pragmatics foreclosing the dilemma between necessitism and contingentism is put forward and defended against some objections