Consider an arbitrary system of logic that handles deontic notions such as "it is obligatory that..." or "it is permissible that...". My question is how -- in these systems -- are we supposed to interpret standalone formulas that don't have any deontic components to them? For example, consider the formula (p & q). If we see (p & q) as a premise in an inference, are we supposed to interpret that as "p is true or q is true" like we normally would in propositional logic, or do all formulas assume some deontic component in their interpretations? I'm assuming the former but just wanted to make absolutely sure.


Your assumption is indeed correct.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.