Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:09:30.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative necessity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Timothy Smiley
Timothy Smiley*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper was suggested by some work of Alan Ross Anderson on deontic logic. Anderson proposed in [1] that the various deontic modalities (‘it is obligatory that’, ‘it is forbidden that’, ‘it is permitted that’, etc.) should be defined in terms of the ordinary alethic modalities (‘it is necessary that’, ‘it is possible that’, etc.). The definition I shall consider is not in fact Anderson's own, though it is closely related to it. His definition, as set out in [1], involves the idea of an (unspecified) penalty or sanction. A forbidden action is defined as one whose commission entails the application of the sanction; an obligatory action is one whose omission entails the application of the sanction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 1963, pp. 113 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Anderson, Alan Ross, The formai analysis of normative systems. Technical Report no. 2, U.S. Office of Naval Research, Group Psychology Branch. (New Haven, 1956.)Google Scholar
[2]Nowell-Smith, P. H. and Lemmon, E. J., Escapism: the logical basis of ethics. Mind, vol. 69 (1960), pp. 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Lemmon, E. J., New foundations for Lewis modal systems. this Journal, vol. 22 (1957), pp. 176–186.Google Scholar
[4]Thomas, Ivo, Logic and theology. Dominican Studies, vol. 1 (1948), pp. 291–312.Google Scholar
[5]Montague, Richard and Henkin, Leon, On the definition of ‘formal deduction’. This Journal, vol. 21 (1956), pp. 129–136.Google Scholar
[6]Shaw-Kwei, Moh, The deduction theorems and two new logical systems. Methodes, vol. 2 (1950), pp. 56–75.Google Scholar
[7]Barcan, Ruth C., The deduction theorem in a functional calculus based on strict implication. This Journal, vol. 11 (1946), pp. 115–117.Google Scholar
[8]Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. H., Symbolic logic. (New York, 1932.)Google Scholar
[9]Barcan, Ruth C., A functional calculus of first order based on strict implication. This Journal, vol. 11 (1946), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
[10]McKinsey, J. C. C., A solution of the decision problem for the Lewis systems S2 and S4, with an application to topology. this Journal, vol. 6 (1941), pp. 117–134.Google Scholar
[11]Huntington, E. V., Independent postulates related to C. I. Lewis's theory of strict implication. Mind, vol. 43 (1934), pp. 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Wajsberg, M., Ein erweiterter Klassenkalkül. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 40 (1933), pp. 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Łukasiewicz, Jan, A system of modal logic. The Journal of Computing Systems, vol. 1 no. 3 (1953), pp. 111–149.Google Scholar
[14]Prior, A. N., Logicians at play; or Syll, Simp, and Hilbert. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 34 (1956), pp. 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Smiley, T. J., On Łukasiewicz's L-modal system. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 2 (1961), pp. 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Prior, A. N., Time and modality. (Oxford, 1957.)Google Scholar
[17]O'Connor, D. J., Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind, vol. 57 (1948), pp. 358–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Quine, W. V., On a so-called paradox. Mind, vol. 62 (1953), pp. 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar