Carmo and Jones’ logic for contrary-to-duty obligations revised

José Carmo; Andrew J. I. Jones

doi:10.1093/logcom/exac026

Carmo and Jones’ logic for contrary-to-duty obligations revised

José Carmo^*, Andrew J. I. Jones

^*Corresponding author for this work

Informatics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

We revise our logic for contrary-to-duty (CTD) conditionals, showing how to adjust our logical models in such a way as to avoid the counterintuitive results pointed out by Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, but keep the main results that support our logical analysis of CTD scenarios.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1352-1364
Journal	Journal of Logic and Computation
Volume	32
Issue number	7
Early online date	29 Mar 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exac026
Publication status	Published - Oct 2022

Access to Document

10.1093/logcom/exac026Licence: Other

Cite this

@article{aa2bc5c040914b238c06d17fd1422afc,

title = "Carmo and Jones{\textquoteright} logic for contrary-to-duty obligations revised",

abstract = "We revise our logic for contrary-to-duty (CTD) conditionals, showing how to adjust our logical models in such a way as to avoid the counterintuitive results pointed out by Bj{\o}rn Kjos-Hanssen, but keep the main results that support our logical analysis of CTD scenarios.",

author = "Jos{\'e} Carmo and Jones, {Andrew J. I.}",

year = "2022",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1093/logcom/exac026",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "1352--1364",

journal = "Journal of Logic and Computation",

issn = "0955-792X",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carmo and Jones’ logic for contrary-to-duty obligations revised

AU - Carmo, José

AU - Jones, Andrew J. I.

PY - 2022/10

Y1 - 2022/10

N2 - We revise our logic for contrary-to-duty (CTD) conditionals, showing how to adjust our logical models in such a way as to avoid the counterintuitive results pointed out by Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, but keep the main results that support our logical analysis of CTD scenarios.

AB - We revise our logic for contrary-to-duty (CTD) conditionals, showing how to adjust our logical models in such a way as to avoid the counterintuitive results pointed out by Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, but keep the main results that support our logical analysis of CTD scenarios.

U2 - 10.1093/logcom/exac026

DO - 10.1093/logcom/exac026

M3 - Article

SN - 0955-792X

VL - 32

SP - 1352

EP - 1364

JO - Journal of Logic and Computation

JF - Journal of Logic and Computation

IS - 7

ER -

Carmo and Jones’ logic for contrary-to-duty obligations revised

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this