Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Cariani2013

[Car13] — `Ought' and Resolution Semantics #

[cariani-2013] (Noûs 47:534-558) presents an anti-INHERITANCE account of ought: standard "boxing" semantics treats ought as universal quantification over best worlds (Kratzer 1981/1991), which validates INHERITANCE (If p ⊨ q then ought(p) ⊨ ought(q)) — but this fails empirically. Cariani offers three motivating puzzles (§§I-III) and a positive proposal called Resolution Semantics (§4), inspired by Yalcin's terminology (Cariani p.545).

The three INHERITANCE-violation puzzles:

Cariani's Resolution Semantics (§4 p.544-546):

Coarseness and Coarse Falsemaking #

[Car13] §1 (p.534) opens with:

[COARSENESS] S ought to φ can be true even though there are impermissible ways of φ-ing.

This is the paper's leading desideratum — ought is coarser than the way-action distinction. Cariani.ought satisfies coarseness by not requiring every way-of-p to itself be ought-true; only that they meet the benchmark (Strong Permissibility).

§2 (p.541, restated p.546) gives the positive constraint:

[COARSE FALSEMAKING] An ought-sentence is false (in a context) if there is a relevant option compatible with the prejacent that's impermissible.

Our ought_negation_via_coarse_falsemaking makes this precise.

Cross-framework: structural agreement with Phillips-Brown #

Cariani's visible is definitionally identical to Phillips-Brown's IsConsidered (Semantics/Attitudes/Desire/QuestionBased.lean, [PB25] §3.6) — so much so that we don't redefine it: Cariani2013.isVisible is an abbrev for IsConsidered over the options list. The bridge theorem isVisible_iff_IsConsidered is Iff.rfl.

This is parallel discovery, not chain-of-influence: Cariani 2013's bibliography (pp.557-558) contains no Crnič citation; PB 2025 cites Crnič 2011 (PhD thesis "Getting Even") as inspiration. Both independently arrived at the same predicate via different routes: Cariani via Lewisian relevant-alternatives + Yalcin terminology (p.546); PB via Crnič's question-sensitive belief proposal. The formal identity of the two predicates is a substantive cross-framework finding that linglib's "make agreements visible" thesis surfaces.

DUALITY failure (paper §5 p.547-548) #

Cariani's Resolution Semantics rejects INHERITANCE, which forces rejection of one direction of DUALITY (ought p ↔ ¬ permitted ¬p). Specifically (p.547): "the rejection of the right-to-left direction of DUALITY is an immediate consequence of the rejection of INHERITANCE." See cariani_duality_right_to_left_failure.

§1. Resolution Semantics primitives #

Following [Car13] §4 (pp.544-545). The three contextual parameters are options, ordering, benchmark. Per §4 (p.545):

If individual options are modeled as propositions, a range of mutually exclusive options can be thought of as a set of mutually exclusive propositions—i.e., as a partition of a subset S of logical space.

We model options as a List (Finset W) — finite, with decidable membership — matching the substrate's Desire.QuestionBased representation of partition cells. Mutual exclusivity is a hypothesis on consumers, not a structure field.

@[instance_reducible]
instance Cariani2013.instDecidablePredMemSet_linglib {W : Type u_1} {p : Set W} [DecidablePred p] :
DecidablePred fun (x : W) => x p

Cariani's propositions carry function-form decidability; the question-based substrate reads membership.

Equations
structure Cariani2013.ResolutionContext (W : Type u_2) :
Type u_2

A ResolutionContext packages Cariani's three parameters: options (mutually exclusive cells), an ordering on options, and a benchmark predicate (a cutoff IN the ordering's range, not a numeric threshold — Cariani is non-committal between ranking and quantitative scales, p.545).

  • options : List (Finset W)

    Mutually exclusive options (a partition of the relevant action space). Stored as Finset cells for decide-friendliness.

  • betterThan : Finset WFinset WProp

    Ranking on options: betterThan o₁ o₂ means o₁ is at least as preferable as o₂.

  • betterThanDec (a b : Finset W) : Decidable (self.betterThan a b)

    Decidability of the ordering.

  • meetsBenchmark : Finset WProp

    Benchmark predicate: an option meetsBenchmark if it is at or above the threshold.

  • meetsBenchmarkDec (o : Finset W) : Decidable (self.meetsBenchmark o)

    Decidability of the benchmark predicate.

Instances For
    @[instance_reducible]
    instance Cariani2013.instDecidableBetterThan {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (a b : Finset W) :
    Decidable (rc.betterThan a b)
    Equations
    @[instance_reducible]
    instance Cariani2013.instDecidableMeetsBenchmark {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (o : Finset W) :
    Decidable (rc.meetsBenchmark o)
    Equations

    §2. The four derived predicates (Cariani §4 p.545-546) #

    def Cariani2013.isWayOf {W : Type u_1} (o : Finset W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

    Option o is a way of p iff o entails p.

    Equations
    Instances For
      @[instance_reducible]
      instance Cariani2013.instDecidableIsWayOf {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (o : Finset W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
      Decidable (isWayOf o p)
      Equations
      @[reducible, inline]
      abbrev Cariani2013.isVisible {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

      p is visible in Cariani's options iff every option settles p.

      Definitionally identical to Phillips-Brown's IsConsidered — aliased rather than restipulated, per CLAUDE.md "import don't restipulate" discipline. The bridge theorem isVisible_iff_IsConsidered is Iff.rfl.

      Equations
      Instances For
        def Cariani2013.isPermissible {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

        p is permissible iff some option that's a way-of-p meets benchmark. (Not used in Cariani's ought definition — used to define permitted for the dual operator, §3 below.)

        Equations
        Instances For
          @[instance_reducible]
          instance Cariani2013.instDecidableIsPermissible {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
          Decidable (isPermissible rc p)
          Equations
          def Cariani2013.isStronglyPermissible {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

          p is strongly permissible iff every option that's a way-of-p meets benchmark.

          Equations
          Instances For
            @[instance_reducible]
            instance Cariani2013.instDecidableIsStronglyPermissible {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
            Decidable (isStronglyPermissible rc p)
            Equations
            def Cariani2013.isBest {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (o : Finset W) :

            An option o is best iff it's at-least-as-good-as every other listed option. The o ∈ rc.options membership check is the caller's responsibility — it's implicit in the typical ∀ o ∈ rc.options, isBest rc o → ... consumption pattern in isOptimal.

            Equations
            Instances For
              @[instance_reducible]
              instance Cariani2013.instDecidableIsBest {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (o : Finset W) :
              Decidable (isBest rc o)
              Equations
              def Cariani2013.isOptimal {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

              p is optimal iff every best option is a way-of-p.

              Equations
              Instances For
                @[instance_reducible]
                instance Cariani2013.instDecidableIsOptimal {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
                Decidable (isOptimal rc p)
                Equations

                §3. Cariani's ought and permitted (paper §4 p.546, §5 p.547) #

                ⟦ought p⟧^{c,w} = 1 iff p is visible AND optimal AND strongly permissible. The conjunction order in our definition follows the paper's informal §2 (p.540) ordering; the paper's formal §4 (p.546) ordering is (i) Optimality, (ii) Strong Permissibility, (iii) Visibility. The truth-conditions are identical.

                permitted p (§5 p.556 fn 23): p is permitted iff some option ≥ benchmark is a way-of-p. This is isPermissible itself.

                DUALITY (ought p ↔ ¬ permitted ¬p) is rejected by Cariani in the right-to-left direction (p.547), as a consequence of rejecting INHERITANCE.

                def Cariani2013.ought {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

                Cariani-style ought (Resolution Semantics, §4 p.546). Conjunction of visibility, optimality, and strong permissibility.

                Equations
                Instances For
                  @[instance_reducible]
                  instance Cariani2013.instDecidableOught {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
                  Decidable (ought rc p)
                  Equations
                  def Cariani2013.permitted {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

                  Cariani-style permitted (paper p.556 fn 23, "first entry"): some option ≥ benchmark is a way-of-p. Identical to isPermissible; we expose it as a named operator for clarity.

                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    @[instance_reducible]
                    instance Cariani2013.instDecidablePermitted {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] [DecidableEq W] (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
                    Decidable (permitted rc p)
                    Equations

                    §4. Bridge to Phillips-Brown's IsConsidered #

                    [PB25]'s IsConsidered (Desire.QuestionBased) is definitionally the same predicate as Cariani's isVisible. Since isVisible is now an abbrev (§2 above), the bridge theorem is Iff.rfl.

                    Per the docstring's "parallel discovery" note: Cariani 2013 doesn't cite Crnič; PB 2025 cites Crnič 2011 but not Cariani 2013. The agreement is independent reinvention. Linglib's "make agreements visible" thesis surfaces the structural identity.

                    theorem Cariani2013.isVisible_iff_IsConsidered {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :

                    Cariani's isVisible and Phillips-Brown's IsConsidered are the same predicate. Since isVisible is an abbrev over IsConsidered, the proof is Iff.rfl.

                    §5. INHERITANCE failure on Ross's Puzzle (paper §I) #

                    Ross's Puzzle: Joan ought to attend her classes does NOT entail Joan ought to either attend her classes or burn down the philosophy department. Under boxing semantics, INHERITANCE (p ⊨ q ⇒ ought(p) ⊨ ought(q)) makes this entailment valid. Cariani's Resolution Semantics predicts the disjunction is FALSE.

                    We construct a 3-world model: attend, stay_home, burn. Options {attend, stay_home, burn}; benchmark = stay_home; ranking: attend > stay_home > burn. Then:

                    INHERITANCE fails because attend ⊨ (attend ∨ burn) but ought(attend) ⊭ ought(attend ∨ burn).

                    Instances For
                      @[instance_reducible]
                      Equations
                      @[instance_reducible]
                      Equations
                      def Cariani2013.instReprRossW.repr :
                      RossWStd.Format
                      Equations
                      Instances For
                        @[instance_reducible]
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        @[instance_reducible]
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        @[instance_reducible]
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        def Cariani2013.rossOptions :
                        List (Finset RossW)

                        The three options: singleton courses of action.

                        Equations
                        Instances For
                          def Cariani2013.rossRank (o : Finset RossW) :

                          Rank of an option: max of rossWorldRank over its worlds (0 for the empty option). For the three singleton options, this is just the world's rank.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Benchmark: only attend (rank 3) and stay_home (rank 2) meet benchmark. Burn (rank 1) is impermissible.

                            Equations
                            Instances For
                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                ought(attend) holds in Ross's context: visible, optimal, and strongly permissible.

                                attend is visible in Ross's context — every option settles it.

                                attendburn is also visible (every option settles it).

                                The disjunction attendburn is NOT strongly permissible — burn is a way-of-(attend ∨ burn) but doesn't meet the benchmark.

                                Ross's Puzzle, formal: ought(attend ∨ burn) is FALSE in Cariani's Resolution Semantics, even though attendattendburn and ought(attend) is true. This is the INHERITANCE failure.

                                §6. INHERITANCE failure on Procrastinate (paper §II) #

                                Jackson & Pargetter 1986: Procrastinate ought to accept and write is true; Procrastinate ought to accept is false.

                                Cariani's analysis (p.541): Procrastinate's options must include "accept and write", "accept without writing", "do not accept", ordered as accept_and_write > do_not_accept > benchmark > accept_without_writing.

                                Instances For
                                  @[instance_reducible]
                                  Equations
                                  @[instance_reducible]
                                  Equations
                                  def Cariani2013.instReprProcW.repr :
                                  ProcWStd.Format
                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For
                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    def Cariani2013.procRank (o : Finset ProcW) :
                                    Equations
                                    Instances For
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For

                                        The "accept" proposition: true at both accept_write and accept_no_write.

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For
                                          @[instance_reducible]
                                          Equations

                                          Procrastinate, formal: ought(accept) is FALSE in Cariani's Resolution Semantics, even though accept_write ⊨ accept and ought(accept_write) is true.

                                          §7. Boxing as a special case (paper p.546) #

                                          Cariani 2013 p.546 lists TWO conditions for the reduction to boxing:

                                          (a) The cells of Q_c are all singleton sets. (b) For every o, o ≥ benchmark.

                                          Under (a)+(b), Resolution Semantics reduces to standard Kratzer/Lewis boxing semantics. We formalize the partial reduction (under (b) alone the Strong Permissibility clause is neutralized; combined with (a) the Visibility + Optimality clauses collapse to the boxing reading).

                                          theorem Cariani2013.ought_iff_visible_and_optimal_of_all_meet_benchmark {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (hAllMeet : orc.options, rc.meetsBenchmark o) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] :
                                          ought rc p isVisible rc p isOptimal rc p

                                          Partial reduction (condition (b) only): when every option meets the benchmark, Strong Permissibility is trivially satisfied, and ought reduces to Visibility ∧ Optimality. This is not yet Kratzer boxing — boxing requires (a) singleton cells too.

                                          §8. Coarseness and Coarse Falsemaking (paper §1 p.534, §2 p.541) #

                                          Cariani's leading desideratum (COARSENESS, p.534): ought can be true even when there are impermissible ways of φ-ing. And his positive constraint (COARSE FALSEMAKING, p.541, p.546): ought is false if there's a relevant impermissible option compatible with the prejacent.

                                          These are two sides of the same coin: ought is coarser than "every way-of-p is permissible" (allows some impermissible ways) but finer than "some way-of-p is permissible" (rejected when an impermissible option compatible with the prejacent is available).

                                          theorem Cariani2013.ought_negation_via_coarse_falsemaking {W : Type u_1} (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) [DecidablePred p] (o : Finset W) (ho : o rc.options) (hWay : isWayOf o p) (hImp : ¬rc.meetsBenchmark o) :
                                          ¬ought rc p

                                          Coarse Falsemaking (paper §2 p.541, restated p.546): if there is an option o ∈ rc.options that is a way-of-p and o does NOT meet benchmark, then ought p is false. This is exactly the Strong Permissibility clause's contrapositive — and is the mechanism by which Cariani derives ¬ ought (attend ∨ burn) in Ross's puzzle.

                                          §9. DUALITY failure (paper §5 p.547-548) #

                                          Standard deontic logic has DUALITY: ought p ↔ ¬ permitted ¬p. This follows from boxing (where ought = □ and permitted = ◇) in classical modal logic.

                                          Cariani (p.547) explicitly rejects the right-to-left direction (¬ permitted ¬p → ought p) as an immediate consequence of rejecting INHERITANCE: he uses Ross's Puzzle as the ipso facto counter-example (p.547):

                                          The anti-boxer insists that (3) is false: it is false that Joan ought to either attend her classes or burn down the philosophy department. It does not follow from this that she's permitted to do something incompatible with the prejacent of (3) (e.g., go to a museum). She must, after all, attend her classes.

                                          Specifically, in rossContext: permitted (¬(attend ∨ burn)) would be the existence of a way-of-(stay_home, the only ¬(attend ∨ burn) option) at-or-above benchmark. stay_home IS at benchmark. Yet ought (attend ∨ burn) fails (Ross's puzzle). So ¬ permitted ¬(attend ∨ burn) is FALSE, while ought (attend ∨ burn) is also false — vacuously satisfying the right-to-left implication? No: the relevant case is the contrapositive. The actual right-to-left DUALITY failure: pick a q where permitted q is false but ought ¬q is also false.

                                          theorem Cariani2013.inheritance_failure_exists :
                                          ∃ (W : Type) (x : Fintype W) (x : DecidableEq W) (rc : ResolutionContext W) (p : Set W) (x : DecidablePred p) (q : Set W) (x_1 : DecidablePred q), (∀ (w : W), p wq w) ought rc p ¬ought rc q

                                          The INHERITANCE failure, existentially packaged: a context and propositions p ⊨ q with ought p true and ought q false (Ross's puzzle: p = attend, q = attendburn). This is the failure Cariani p.547 invokes to reject the right-to-left direction of DUALITY (¬ permitted ¬p → ought p); rossContext itself satisfies that direction vacuously, and a direct DUALITY-failure witness needs a richer model.

                                          §10. Weakening failure (paper §III pre-figured; [Car16] core) #

                                          Cariani 2013 §III flags conditional-ought issues that prefigure Weakening failures, but the explicit Weakening attack (ought(A) ∧ ought(B) ⊨ ought(A ∨ B)) is the central topic of [Car16]. We formalize the failure here using rossContext: ought(attend) and ought(stay_home) are both true, but ought(attend ∨ stay_home ∨ burn) is false — because burn is a way-of-the-disjunction that doesn't meet benchmark.

                                          (For the simple disjunction attendstay_home, Weakening holds in rossContext; the failure needs disjuncts whose union acquires an impermissible way-of-disjunction option, as with burn above.)

                                          ought(stay_home) is false in rossContext — stay_home is a way-of-stay_home, meets benchmark, but attend is the unique best option and attend is NOT a way-of-stay_home. So isOptimal fails.

                                          §11. Cross-framework summary #