Arguing about constitutive and regulative norms. Issue 2 (3rd July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pigozzi, Gabriella; van der Torre, Leendert
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied non-classical logics. Volume 28:Issue 2/3(2018)
• Page Start: 189
• Page End: 217
• Publication Date: 2018-07-03
• Subjects: Normative reasoning -- deontic logic -- argumentation -- input/output logic; Nonclassical mathematical logic -- Periodicals; Wiskundige logica; Logic; Periodicals; 511.3105
• DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2018.1487242
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1166-3081

Abstract

Abstract: Formal arguments are often represented by (support, conclusion) pairs, but in this paper we consider normative arguments represented by sequences of (brute, institutional, deontic) triples, where constitutive norms derive institutional facts from brute facts, and regulative norms derive deontic facts like obligations and permissions from institutional facts. The institutional facts may be seen as the reasons explaining or warranting the deontic obligations and permissions, and therefore they can be attacked by other normative arguments too. We represent different aspects of normative reasoning by different kinds of consistency checks among these triples, and we use formal argumentation theory to resolve conflicts among such normative arguments. In particular, we introduce various requirements for arguing about norms concerning violations, contrary-to-duty obligations, dilemmas, conflict resolution and different kinds of norms, and we introduce a formal argumentation theory satisfying the requirements. In order to illustrate our framework, we introduce a running example based on university regulations for prospective and actual students.