Abstract
What does it mean that something is probably obligatory? And how does it relate to the probability that it is permitted or prohibited? In this paper, we provide a possible answer by merging deontic argumentation and probabilistic argumentation into a probabilistic deontic argumentation framework. This framework allows us to specify a semantics for the probability of deontic statuses. The deontic argumentation part builds on standard concepts from the study of computational models of argument: rule-based arguments, argumentation graphs, argument labelling semantics and statement labelling semantics. We then encapsulate this deontic composition with the approach of probabilistic labellings to probabilistic argumentation, in order to associate deontic statements with probability values. The framework is illustrated
with a scenario featuring a violation and a contrary-to-duty obligation
with a scenario featuring a violation and a contrary-to-duty obligation
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 249-271 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | International Journal of Approximate Reasoning |
Volume | 126 |
Early online date | 31 Aug 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Nov 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Régis Riveret: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Nir Oren: Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Giovanni Sartor: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.Keywords
- Probabilistic argumentation
- deontic argumentation
- Deontic argumentation
- SUPPORT
- LAW
- ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION
- STRUCTURED ARGUMENTATION
- POSITIVISM