Deontic logic

Gustaaf C. Cornelis
Table of contents

Deontic logic is the logical study of normative concepts in language. Its subject matter is a variety of normative concepts, notably those of obligation, prohibition, permission and commitment. The first one among these concepts is often expressed by such words as ‘shall’, ‘ought’, and ‘must’, the second by ‘shall not’, ‘ought not’ and ‘must not’, and the third one by ‘may’. The fourth notion amounts to an idea of conditional obligation, expressible by ‘if …, then it shall (must) be the case that -’.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Åqvist, L.
1984 Deontic logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenther (eds.) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 2: 605–714. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, A. R.
1956 The formal analysis of normative systems. In N. Rescher (ed.) 1967 The logic of decision and action: 147–213. University of Pittsburgh Press. Google Scholar
1958 A reduction of deontic logic to alethic model logic. Mind 67: 100–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, H-N.
1981 The paradoxes of deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen (ed.): 37–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, J. E.
1981 A system of temporally relative modal and deontic predicate logic and its philosophical applications. University of Groningen. Google Scholar
Feldman, F.
1986 Doing the best we can. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Føllesdal, D. & R. Hilpinen
1971 Deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen (ed.): 1–35. Google Scholar
Forrester, J.
1989 Why you should. University Press of New England. Google Scholar
Hanson, W. H.
1965 Semantics for deontic logic. Logique et Analyse 8: 177–190. Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R.
(ed.) 1971 Deontic logic. Reidel. Google Scholar
1981 New studies in deontic logic. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J.
1957 Quantifiers in Deontic Logic. Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 23: 4. Google Scholar
1970 Deontic logic and its philosophical morals. In: J. Hintikka, Models for modalities: 184–214Reidel. Google Scholar
1971 Some main problems of deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen (ed.): 59–104. Google Scholar
Kanger, S.
1957 New foundations for ethical theory. In R. Hilpinen (ed.) (1971): 36–58. Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A.
1963a Semantical analysis of modal logic I. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9: 67–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1963b Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta philosophica Fennica 16: 83–94. Google Scholar
Mally, E.
1926 Grundgesetze des Sollens. Lueschner & Lubensky. Google Scholar
Montague, R.
1960 Logical necessity, physical necessity, ethics, and quantifiers. Inquiry 4: 259–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968 Pragmatics. In R. Klibansky (ed.) Contemporary philosophy, vol. 1: 102–122. La Nuova Italia Editrice. Google Scholar
Oppenheim, F. E.
1944 Outline of a logical analysis of law. Philosophy of Science 11: 142–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, A.
1967 Past, present and future. Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. & A. Urquhart
1971 Temporal logic. Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, A.
1941 Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7: 53–71. Google Scholar
Schotch, P. K. & R. E. Jennings
1981 Non-Kripkean deontic logic. In R. Hilpinen (ed.) 1981., 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. H.
1981 Deontic logic as founded on tense logic. in Hilpinen (ed.): 165–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Wright, G. H.
1951 Deontic logic. Mind 60: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1956 A note on deontic logic and derived obligation. Mind 65: 506–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1964 A new system of deontic logic. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, vol 1: 173–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965 A correction to a new system of deontic logic. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy vol 2: 103–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedberg, A.
1951 Some problems in the logical analysis of legal science. Theoria 17: 146–275. Google Scholar