Since it was presented in 1963, Chisholm's paradox has attracted constant attention in the deontic logic literature, but without the emergence of any definitive solution. We claim this is due to its having no single solution. The paradox actually presents many challenges to the formalization of deontic statements, including (i) context-sensitivity of unconditional oughts, (ii) formalizing conditional oughts, and (iii) distinguishing generic from non-generic oughts. Using the practical interpretation of ‘ought’ as a guideline, we propose a linguistically motivated logical solution to each of these problems, and explain the relation of the solution to the problem of contrary-to-duty obligations.

Abstract A propositional system of modal logic issecond-orderif it contains quantifiers ∀pand ∃pwhich, in the standard interpretation, are construed as ranging over sets of possible worlds (propositions). Most second-order systems of modal logic are highly intractable; for instance, when augmented with propositional quantifiers, K, B, T, K4 and S4 all become effectively equivalent to full second-order logic. An exception is S5, which, being interpretable in monadic second-order logic, is decidable. In this paper we generalize this framework by allowing multiple modalities. While this does not affect the undecidability of K, B, T, K4 and S4, poly-modal second-order S5 is dramatically more expressive than its mono-modal counterpart. As an example, we establish the definability of the transitive closure of finitely many modal operators. We also take up the decidability issue, and, using a novel encoding of sets of unordered pairs by partitions of the leaves of certain graphs, we show that the second-order propositional logic of two S5 modalitities is also equivalent to full second-order logic.

In the literature of symbolic logic there are many examples of systems having free variables ranging over truth-values, individuals, or predicates. But, though many such systems are equipped with universal and existential quantifiers (and though many other quantifiers, e.g., for exactly one, are thereby definable), the problem of free variables corresponding to such constants has been neglected.

In Kripke [8] the first-order intuitionjstic predicate calculus (without identity) is proved semantically complete with respect to a certain model theory, in the sense that every formula of this calculus is shown to be provable if and only if it is valid. Metatheorems of this sort are frequently called weak completeness theorems—the object of the present paper is to extend Kripke's result to obtain a strong completeness theorem for the intuitionistic predicate calculus of first order; i.e., we will show that a formula A of this calculus can be deduced from a set Γ of formulas if and only if Γ implies A. In notes 3 and 5, below, we will indicate how to account for identity, as well. Our proof of the completeness theorem employs techniques adapted from Henkin [6], and makes no use of semantic tableaux; this proof will also yield a Löwenheim-Skolem theorem for the modeling.

In [1] Ludwik Borkowski takes a quantifier symbol ‘Q1’ (e.g., the familiar ‘∀’) to permit definition of another quantifier symbol ‘Q1’ if, where ‘f’ is a singulary predicate variable, there exists a formula A of QC1—a first-order quantificational calculus (without identity and individual constants) having ‘Q1’ as its one primitive quantifier symbol—such that: (1) under the intended interpretations of ‘Q1’ and ‘Q1’ the biconditional (Q1X)f(X) = A is valid, (2) no individual variable occurs free in A, and (3) A contains no propositional variable, and no predicate variable other than ‘f.’