Analysis reveals puzzling aspects of obligations and permissions in deontic semantics, indicating limitations of existing theories.
There are well-known puzzles that arise when contrary-to-duty obligations are subjected to modus ponens. But there is another puzzling feature of these obligations that has not received any attention—they do not entail contrary-to-duty permissions. I aim to bring this puzzle under the spotlight by demonstrating its generality and depth, showing that the most natural ways of deflating it are unsatisfying, and indicating its relevance to theorizing about the semantics of the deontic terms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joe Horton (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: