Mīmāṃsā on ‘better-not’ Permissions

Abstract The traditional definition of permission as the dual of obligation oversimplifies its many applications, often yielding undesirable consequences. Recent literature recognizes the need to distinguish various types of permissions but often overlooks potential preferences associated with them. In contrast, the Sanskrit philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā refutes the interdefinability of deontic concepts, and asserts that permissions always refer to less desirable actions (‘better-not’ permissions), and are exceptions to prohibitions or negative obligations. This article analyzes the concept of Mīmāṃsā permission, compares it with contemporary theories and formalizes it while carefully preserving its essential characteristics. We transform Mīmāṃsā’s reasoning principles for permission into Hilbert axioms and introduce neighbourhood semantics, incorporating ceteris-paribus preferences. The resulting logic is evaluated against various paradoxes from contemporary deontic logic and applied to a scenario from Sanskrit jurisprudence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Philosophical Logic
Published
2025-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-025-09798-3
Primary Topic
Indian and Buddhist Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mīmāṃsā on ‘better-not’ Permissions

Elisa Freschi, Agata Ciabattoni, Josephine Dik
Journal of Philosophical Logic
Indian and Buddhist Studies
article

Mīmāṃsā on ‘better-not’ Permissions

Elisa Freschi, Agata Ciabattoni, Josephine Dik
article en

Abstract

Abstract The traditional definition of permission as the dual of obligation oversimplifies its many applications, often yielding undesirable consequences. Recent literature recognizes the need to distinguish various types of permissions but often overlooks potential preferences associated with them. In contrast, the Sanskrit philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā refutes the interdefinability of deontic concepts, and asserts that permissions always refer to less desirable actions (‘better-not’ permissions), and are exceptions to prohibitions or negative obligations. This article analyzes the concept of Mīmāṃsā permission, compares it with contemporary theories and formalizes it while carefully preserving its essential characteristics. We transform Mīmāṃsā’s reasoning principles for permission into Hilbert axioms and introduce neighbourhood semantics, incorporating ceteris-paribus preferences. The resulting logic is evaluated against various paradoxes from contemporary deontic logic and applied to a scenario from Sanskrit jurisprudence.

Journal of Philosophical LogicVol. 54(3)
TU Wien (AT), University of Toronto (CA), SBA Research (AT)
European Commission, Austrian Science Fund, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Indian and Buddhist Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.