Abstract
Moral dilemmas are one of the major issues of current research in ethical reasoning. In particular, it is well known that admitting moral dilemmas in Standard Deontic Logic generates a family of inconsistencies that are intrinsically unsolvable. Since managing dilemmas means performing preferential reasoning, we argue that one simple approach to both types of problems is by ordering actions. We notice that in general, more than local orderings between two actions, agents have intrinsic preferences based on classification issues, like the action type, and that, once we have discharged the dilemma as it is intrinsically, preferential reasoning is performed by using a second-level choice approach. Decision theory has dealt with the problem of making decisions in presence of conflicting decision criteria, and some researcher has pointed out that this is the case of moral dilemmas as well. In practice, the choice of preferences in presence of conflicting criteria can be seen as a form of preferential-ethical reasoning. Although this is certainly an important topic in multiple agent investigations, it is definitely neglected in the current investigations. It is well known that humans are quite clever in solving moral dilemmas, and the usage they make of preferential reasoning is very complex. In this paper we address the problems of preferential-ethical reasoning in a combinatorial fashion and provide an algorithm for making decisions on moral dilemmas in presence of conflicting decision criteria. We then evaluate the complexity of the algorithm and prove that this approach can be applied in practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bacchus F, Grove A (1996) Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (KR ’96). Morgan Kaufmann, 1996
Bacchus F, Grove A (1997) Independence and qualitative decision theory. In: Working notes of the stanford spring symposium on qualitative decision theory, Stanford, CA, 1997
Boyssou D, Vincke Ph (1998) Topics on preference modelling. In: Annals of operation research, 80. Preface to the special issue on preference modelling
Castelfranchi C. (2005) Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Lesser V. (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS 95). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 41–48
Dowling C (2000) Intelligent agents: some ethical issues and dilemmas. In: CRPIT ’00: selected papers from the second Australian Institute conference on Computer ethics, pp 28–32, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2000. Australian Computer Society, Inc
Doyle J, Wellman M (1994) Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In: Hanks S, Russel S, Wellman M (eds) Working notes of the AAAI spring symposium on decision-theoretic planning, Stanford, CA, 1994
Goble L (2005) A logic for deontic dilemmas. J Appl Logic 3(3–4): 461–483
Ha V, Haddawy P (1998) Towards case-based preference elicitation: similarity measures on preference structures. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pp 193–201, July 1998
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley , New York
Marino P (2001) Moral dilemmas, collective responsibility, and moral progress. Philos Stud (104): 203–225
Roubens M, Vincke Ph (1985) Preference nodelling. In: Number 250 in Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, p 94. Springer, Berlin
van der Torre L (2003) Contextual deontic logic: normative agents, violations and independence. Ann Math Artificial Intell 37(1): 33–63
Governatori G., Rotolo A. (2004) Defeasible logic: agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio A, Nute D. (eds) Deontic logic in computer science, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 114–128
Holbo J (2002) Moral dilemmas and the logic of obligation. Am Philos Quart 39(3): 259–274
Pereira LM, Saptawijaya A (2007) Modelling morality with prospective logic. In: Number 4874 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cristani, M., Burato, E. Approximate solutions of moral dilemmas in multiple agent system. Knowl Inf Syst 18, 157–181 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0172-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0172-0