Deontic conflicts and multiple violations

Abstract

This paper presents a novel semantics for deontic modals which provides a uniform solution to prominent puzzles in the literature. The paper focuses on deontic conflicts, discussing them using the Dr. Procrastinate puzzle as an example. The focus lies on the Dr. Procrastinate puzzle as it combines an upward monotonicity puzzle with a conflict of obligations, allowing an explanation of the solutions to both types of puzzle in detail. The semantics is an extension of radical inquisitive semantics, and it modifies Andersonian deontic modals as it introduces quantification over alternatives. The solution to deontic conflicts is made possible by the semantics allowing permission and prohibition statements to introduce multiple violations. Each rule is assigned a different violation, allowing for reasoning with rules also in cases where it is impossible to avoid violating all rules.