发表机构
Sorbonne University; CNRS（索邦大学; 法国国家科学研究中心）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
针对生死情境中善意谎言与真相的道德冲突，提出基于智能体信念的逻辑框架，在ASP中实现，评估义务论、后果主义与原则主义下的话语，并以萨特《墙》为例验证，且框架可通过调整参数适应新情境。
AI 中文摘要
在生死攸关的情境中，善意的谎言可能显得比说出真相更具道德性。然而，此类谎言可能适得其反，产生意想不到甚至致命的后果。这一由康德与康斯坦特在1797年著名争论的张力，不仅适用于说谎，也普遍适用于断言性言语行为，由此引发了一个问题：当道德风险极高时，应选择何种话语。我们提出一个基于智能体信念的言语行为话语伦理评价逻辑框架。该框架在回答集编程（ASP）中实现，评估在义务论、后果主义与原则主义下的各种话语，并以萨特的《墙》（1939）为例进行说明，该作品是对这一争议的重新演绎，其中说谎交替导致救援与死亡。我们的设置在设计上具有通用性：正如两个变体所示，适应新的道德情境只需调整参数，而非规则。
英文摘要
In life-or-death situations, a benevolent lie may appear more moral than telling the truth. Yet such lies can backfire, producing unintended and sometimes fatal consequences. This tension, famously disputed by Kant and Constant in 1797, applies not only to lying but to assertive speech acts in general, raising the question of which utterance should be chosen when moral stakes are high. We present a logical framework for the ethical evaluation of speech-act utterances based on agents' beliefs. Implemented in Answer Set Programming (ASP), the framework assesses utterances under deontologism, consequentialism, and principialism, and is illustrated on Sartre's The Wall (1939), a reworking of that controversy in which lying leads alternately to rescue and to death. Our setting is general by design: as two variants show, accommodating a new moral situation amounts to adjusting parameters, not rules.
CommentsTo appear in the Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2026). Kumamoto, Japan
