Theoria 87 (3):659-703 (2021)

Matteo Pascucci
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Elisa Freschi
University of Toronto, St. George Campus
The article offers an overview of the deontic theory developed by the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā, which is, and has been since the last centuries BCE, the main source of normative concepts in Sanskrit thought. Thus, the Mīmāṃsā deontics is interesting for any historian of philosophy and constitutes a thought-provoking occasion to rethink deontic concepts, taking advantage of centuries of systematic reflections on these topics. Some comparison with notions currently used in Euro-American normative theories and metaethical principles is offered in order to show possible points of contact and deep divergences. In more detail, after an introduction explaining the methodology and aims of our work, we discuss how Mīmāṃsā authors distinguished and defined some fundamental deontic concepts, such as different types of prescriptions and prohibitions. We then discuss how Mīmāṃsā authors approached the problem of conflicts among commands without jeopardising the validity of the normative text issuing them. In the second part of the article we introduce our formal apparatus, which is construed around the main taxonomic and conceptual distinctions used in the first part. Our formal rendering captures the most important features of the Mīmāṃsā theory and can thus serve as a concise and rigorous presentation of it for scholars working in deontic logic.
Keywords Mīmāṃsā  Sanskrit philosophy  deontic conflicts  deontic logic  formalisation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/theo.12307
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,657
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Natural History of Negation.Jon Barwise & Laurence R. Horn - 1991 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (3):1103.
Picking and Choosing.Edna Ullmann-Margalit & Sidney Morgenbesser - 1977 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 44 (4):757-785.
“Cannot” Implies “Not Ought”.Frances Howard-Snyder - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):233-246.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Evaluative Vs. Deontic Concepts.Christine Tappolet - 2013 - In Hugh Lafollette (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1791-99.
Formal Analysis of Responsibility Attribution in a Multimodal Framework.Daniela Glavaničová & Matteo Pascucci - 2019 - In Matteo Baldoni, Mehdi Dastani, Beishui Liao, Yuko Sakurai & Rym Zalila Wenkstern (eds.), PRIMA 2019: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer. pp. 36-51.


Added to PP index

Total views
7 ( #1,049,022 of 2,462,325 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #299,152 of 2,462,325 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes