Using n-ary multi-modal logics in argumentation frameworks to reason about ethics

Abstract

Autonomous behaviors may raise ethical issues that agents must consider in their reasoning. Some approaches use deontic logics, while others consider a value-based argumentation framework. However, no work combines both modal logic and argumentation to reason about ethics. Hence, we propose a new argumentation framework where arguments are built from a n-ary multi-modal logic. It allows to express different kinds of operators, e.g. nullary choice or moral worth operators, dyadic deontic operators or mental states. However the standard attacks based on logical contradictions are no longer sufficient to catch an intuitive meaning for attacks. Hence, we enrich standard attacks by characterizing how oppositions between modal operators arise. Furthermore we show the standard logic-based attacks have a quasi-symmetry property, i.e. when an argument attacks another, this argument is necessarily attacked by another one. Our modal attacks do not have this property, which is highly relevant to decide a dilemma.

Keywords

Computational ethics modal logic structured argumentation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amgoud, Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning55(9) (2014), 2028–2048. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2013.10.004.

Amgoud and

Besnard, A formal analysis of logic-based argumentation systems, in: 4th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6379, Springer-Verlag, 2010, pp. 42–55. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15951-0_10.

Amgoud and

Prade, Using arguments for making and explaining decisions, Artificial Intelligence173(3) (2009), 413–436. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2008.11.006.

Arieli and

Straßer, Sequent-based logical argumentation, Argument & Computation6(1) (2015), 73–99. doi:10.1080/19462166.2014.1002536.

Arkoudas,

Bringsjord and

Bello, Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic, Technical report, AAAI Fall Symposium, 2005.

Atkinson and

T.J.M.

Bench-Capon, Addressing moral problems through practical reasoning, Journal of Applied Logic6(2) (2008), 135–151. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2007.06.005.

T.J.

Bench-Capon, Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation13(3) (2003), 429–448. doi:10.1093/logcom/13.3.429.

Berreby,

Bourgne and

J.-G.

Ganascia, Modelling moral reasoning and ethical responsibility with logic programming, in: 20th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, 2015, pp. 532–548.

Besnard and

Hunter, Practical first-order argumentation, in: 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, 2005, pp. 590–595.

10.

Besnard and

Hunter, Argumentation based on classical logic, in: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence,

Simari and

Rahwan, eds, Springer, 2009, pp. 133–152. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_7.

11.

K.T.

Bhal and

Leekha, Exploring cognitive moral logics using grounded theory: The case of software piracy, Journal of Business Ethics81(3) (2008), 635–646. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9537-7.

12.

Blackburn,

De Rijke and

Venema, Modal Logic: Graph. Darst, Vol. 53, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

13.

Boella,

Hulstijn and

Van Der Torre, A logic of abstract argumentation, in: 2nd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4049, Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 29–41. doi:10.1007/11794578_2.

14.

Borg and

Arieli, Hypersequential argumentation frameworks: An instantiation in the modal logic S5, in: 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent System, 2018, pp. 1097–1104.

15.

Caminada, Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: Ideal and eager, in: 19th Belgian–Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2007, pp. 81–87.

16.

M.W.

Caminada and

D.M.

Gabbay, A logical account of formal argumentation, Studia Logica93(2–3) (2009), 109. doi:10.1007/s11225-009-9218-x.

17.

R.M.

Chisholm, Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic, Analysis24(2) (1963), 33–36. doi:10.1093/analys/24.2.33.

18.

Cointe,

Bonnet and

Boissier, Ethical judgment of agents’ behaviors in multi-agent systems, in: 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 2016, pp. 1106–1114.

19.

Dalmonte,

Mazzullo and

Ozaki, On non-normal modal description logics, in: 32nd International Workshop on Description Logics,

Šimkus and

Weddell, eds, Vol. 2373, 2019, p. 14. CEUR-WS.org .

20.

Damasio, Descartes’s Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, Avon, New York, 1994.

21.

P.M.

Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence77(2) (1995), 321–357. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X.

22.

Dvořák,

König,

Rapberger,

J.P.

Wallner and

Woltran, ASPARTIX-V – a solver for argumentation tasks using ASPs, in: 14th Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms, 2021, pp. 1–12.

23.

J.-G.

Ganascia, Modelling ethical rules of lying with answer set programming, Ethics and Information Technology9(1) (2007), 39–47. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9134-y.

24.

Gert and

Gert, The definition of morality, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

E.N.

Zalta, ed., Fall 2020 edn, Stanford University, 2020.

25.

Gorogiannis and

Hunter, Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties, Artificial Intelligence175(9–10) (2011), 1479–1497.

26.

Governatori,

Olivieri,

Riveret,

Rotolo and

Villata, Dialogues on moral theories, in: 14th International Conference on Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, 2018, pp. 139–155.

27.

Governatori,

Rotolo,

Riveret and

Villata, Modelling dialogues for optimal legislation, in: 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2019, pp. 229–233.

28.

Greene and

Haidt, How (and where) does moral judgment work?, Trends in Cognitive Sciences6(12) (2002), 517–523. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9.

29.

Grossi, On the logic of argumentation theory, in: 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, Citeseer, 2010, pp. 409–416.

30.

Haidt, The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment, Psychological Review108(4) (2001), 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.

31.

J.F.

Horty, Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic, Journal of philosophical logic23(1) (1994), 35–65. doi:10.1007/BF01417957.

32.

Jech, Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, Revised and Expanded, 2003.

33.

Kuipers, Perspectives on ethics of AI: Computer science, in: The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI,

Dubber,

Pasquale and

Das, eds, Oxford University Press, 2019.

34.

Liao,

Anderson and

Anderson, Representation, justification, and explanation in a value-driven agent: An argumentation-based approach, AI and Ethics1 (2021), 9–19.

35.

Lorini, On the logical foundations of moral agency, in: 11th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer, Science, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, Vol. 7393, Springer-Verlag, 2012, pp. 108–122.

36.

McConnell, Moral dilemmas, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

E.N.

Zalta, ed., Fall 2018 edn, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University2018.

37.

Nofal,

Atkinson and

P.E.

Dunne, Computing grounded extensions of abstract argumentation frameworks, The Computer Journal64(1) (2021), 54–63. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxz138.

38.

J.L.

Pollock, Defeasible reasoning, Cognitive science11(4) (1987), 481–518. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4.

39.

Prakken, An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments, Argument and Computation1(2) (2010), 93–124. doi:10.1080/19462160903564592.

40.

Prakken and

Sergot, Dyadic deontic logic and contrary-to-duty obligations, in: Defeasible Deontic Logic, Springer, 1997, pp. 223–262. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_10.

41.

Proietti,

Grossi,

Smets and

F.R.

Velázquez-Quesada, Bipolar argumentation frameworks, modal logic and semantic paradoxes, in: 7th International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, Vol. 11813, Springer-Verlag, 2019, pp. 214–229. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-60292-8_16.

42.

Saptawijaya and

L.M.

Pereira, Towards modeling morality computationally with logic programming, in: International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Lecture Notes on Comuter Science, Vol. 8324, Springer-Verlag, 2014, pp. 104–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04132-2_8.

43.

Tachtsis, Łoś’s theorem and the axiom of choice, Mathematical Logic Quarterly65(3) (2019), 280–292. doi:10.1002/malq.201700074.

44.

Timmons, Moral Theory: An Introduction, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

45.

D.N.

Walton, Ethical Argumentation, Lexington, 2003.

46.

Wiegel and

van den Berg, Combining moral theory, modal logic and MAS to create well-behaving artificial agents, International Journal of Social Robotics1(3) (2009), 233–242. doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0023-5.

47.

Zhong,

Fan,

Luo and

Toni, An explainable multi-attribute decision model based on argumentation, Expert Systems with Applications117 (2019), 42–61. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.038.