Skip to content

Deontic Modalities


Thomas Müller


Pages 179 - 182



Modalities, or modal operators, modify propositions to form new propositions, thus constituting a formal-language analogue of adverbial modification in natural language. In many instances there is a pair of dual one-place modalities, such as the alethic modalities of ‘it is possible that’ and ‘it is necessary that’. Such is also the case for the deontic modalities ‘it is permitted that’ (often symbolised as ‘P’) and ‘it is obligatory that’ (often symbolised as ‘O’). These modalities are dual in the sense that ‘non-P-non’ corresponds to ‘O’: if it is obligatory that p, then it is not permitted that non-p. (Consequently, ‘non-O-non’ corresponds to ‘P’). In formal contexts it is customary to take the strong ‘O’ modality as basic and to treat the weak ‘P’ as an abbreviation; sometimes ‘F’ (‘it is forbidden that’) is used as an abbreviation for ‘Onon’ (equivalently, for ‘non-P’).




1Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz



1 Anscombe, G. E. M., (1963), Intention, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell.

2 Anderson, A. R., (1958), “A Reduction of Deontic Logic to Alethic Modal Logic”, Mind 67: 100-103.

3 Åqvist, L., (2002), “Deontic Logic” in D. M. Gabbay; Guenthner, F., eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed., Vol. 8, 147-264.

4 Carmo, J.; Jones, A., (2002), “Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duties”, in Gabay D. M; F. Guenthner, eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed., Vol. 8, 265-343.

5 Cariani, F.; Grossi, D.; Meheus, J.; Parent, X., (2014), Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. 12th International Conference, DEON 2014 = Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8554. Berlin: Springer.

6 Chisholm, R., (1964), “The Ethics of Requirement”, American Philosophical Quarterly 1: 147-153.

7 Geach, P., (1982), “Whatever happened to deontic logic?”, Philosophia 11: 1-12.

8 Horty, J. F., (2001), Agency and Deontic Logic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9 Knuuttila, S., (1981), “The Emergence of Deontic Logic in the Fourteenth Century”, in Hilpinen, R., ed., New Studies in Deontic Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel, 225-248.

10 Lokhorst, G.-J., (2013), “Mally’s Deontic Logic”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/mally-deontic/

11 McNamara, P., (2014), “Deontic Logic”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. N. (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/logic-deontic/.

12 Mally, E., (1926), Grundgesetze des Sollens: Elemente der Logik des Willens, Graz: Leuschner und Lubensky. Reprint in Mally, E., 1971, Logische Schriften: Großes Logikfragment, Grundgesetze des Sollens, Wolf, K.; Weingartner, P., eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 227-324.

13 Meyden, R. van der; Torre, L. van der, eds., (2008), Deontic Logic in Computer Science.9th International Conference, DEON 2008 = Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5076. Berlin: Springer.

14 Ross, A., (1941), “Imperatives and Logic”, Theoria 7: 53-71.

15 Thomason, R. H., (2014), “The Formalisation of Practical Reasoning: Problems and Prospects”, The IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications 1: 47–76.

16 Thompson, M., (2004), “What is it to wrong someone? A puzzle about justice,” in R. J. Wallace; Pettit, P., Scheffler, S.; Smith, M., eds., Reason and Value. Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 333-384.

17 Thompson, M., (2008), Life and Action. Elementary Structures of Practice and Practical Thought, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

18 von, Wright, G. H., (1951), “Deontic Logic”, Mind 60: 1-15.

Share


Export Citation