Abstract
© 2020 CEUR-WS. All rights reserved. We advance an alternative version of the Chisholm Paradox and we argue that the alternative version (while logically equivalent to the original version), in its manifestation in the natural language, is not intuitively consistent. The alternative version of the paradox suggests some requirements for deontic logics designed for legal reasoning.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
