Defeasible normative reasoning

Cite This

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

SPOHN, Wolfgang, 2020. Defeasible normative reasoning. In: Synthese : An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Springer Science+Business Media. 197(4), pp. 1391-1428. ISSN 0039-7857. eISSN 1573-0964. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02083-2

@article{Spohn2020-04Defea-45711, title={Defeasible normative reasoning}, year={2020}, doi={10.1007/s11229-019-02083-2}, number={4}, volume={197}, issn={0039-7857}, journal={Synthese : An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science}, pages={1391--1428}, author={Spohn, Wolfgang} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/45711"> <dc:contributor>Spohn, Wolfgang</dc:contributor> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/jspui"/> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The paper is motivated by the need of accounting for the practical syllogism as a piece of defeasible reasoning. To meet the need, the paper first refers to ranking theory as an account of defeasible descriptive reasoning. It then argues that two kinds of ought need to be distinguished, purely normative and fact-regarding obligations (in analogy to intrinsic and extrinsic utilities). It continues arguing that both kinds of ought can be iteratively revised and should hence be represented by ranking functions, too, just as iteratively revisable beliefs. Its central proposal will then be that the fact-regarding normative ranking function must be conceived as the sum of a purely normative ranking function and an epistemic ranking function (as suggested in qualitative decision theory). The distinctions defends this proposal with a comparative discussion of some critical examples and some other distinctions made in the literature. It gives a more rigorous justification of this proposal. Finally, it starts developing the logic of purely normative and of fact-regarding normative defeasible reasoning, points to the difficulties of completing the logic of the fact-regarding side, but reaches the initial aim of accounting for the defeasible nature of the practical syllogism.</dcterms:abstract> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/45711"/> <dcterms:title>Defeasible normative reasoning</dcterms:title> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dc:creator>Spohn, Wolfgang</dc:creator> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-04-24T08:04:14Z</dcterms:available> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2019-04-24T08:04:14Z</dc:date> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:issued>2020-04</dcterms:issued> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search KOPS


Browse

My Account