A conflict between some semantic conditions of Carmo and Jones for contrary-to-duty obligations

TL;DR

This paper identifies a conflict in Carmo and Jones' conditions for contrary-to-duty obligations and proposes a resolution to address the inconsistency.

Contribution

It reveals a specific conflict in existing semantic conditions and offers a novel resolution to improve the model's consistency.

Findings

Identified conflict between condition 5(e) and other conditions.

Proposed a resolution to the semantic conflict.

Enhanced the consistency of models for contrary-to-duty obligations.

Abstract

We show that Carmo and Jones' condition 5(e) conflicts with the other conditions on their models for contrary-to-duty obligations. We then propose a resolution to the conflict.