Explaining Non-monotonic Normative Reasoning using Argumentation Theory with Deontic Logic

TL;DR

This paper enhances an argumentation-based reasoning system for legal design support by integrating deontic logic to generate rational, legally valid explanations for complex autonomous driving decisions.

Contribution

It introduces a first-order deontic logic extension to the LeSAC system, enabling effective explanations of normative decisions in legal and ethical contexts.

Findings

Successfully models autonomous driving cases using deontic logic

Proves LeSAC's rationality postulate compliance

Ensures coherent, legally valid explanations in normative reasoning

Abstract

In our previous research, we provided a reasoning system (called LeSAC) based on argumentation theory to provide legal support to designers during the design process. Building on this, this paper explores how to provide designers with effective explanations for their legally relevant design decisions. We extend the previous system for providing explanations by specifying norms and the key legal or ethical principles for justifying actions in normative contexts. Considering that first-order logic has strong expressive power, in the current paper we adopt a first-order deontic logic system with deontic operators and preferences. We illustrate the advantages and necessity of introducing deontic logic and designing explanations under LeSAC by modelling two cases in the context of autonomous driving. In particular, this paper also discusses the requirements of the updated LeSAC to guarantee rationality, and proves that a well-defined LeSAC can satisfy the rationality postulate for rule-based argumentation frameworks. This ensures the system's ability to provide coherent, legally valid explanations for complex design decisions.