Daniel Rönnedal

The purpose of this paper is to develop a class of semantic tableau systems for some dyadic deontic logics. We will consider 16 different pure dyadic deontic tableau systems and 32 different alethic dyadic deontic tableau systems. Possible world semantics is used to interpret our formal languages. Some relationships between our systems and well known dyadic deontic logics in the literature are pointed out and soundness results are obtained for every tableau system. Completeness results are obtained for all 16 pure dyadic deontic systems and for 16 alethic dyadic deontic systems.

In this paper, I develop a new set of doxastic logical systems and I show how they can be used to solve several well-known problems in doxastic logic, for example the so-called problem of logical omniscience. According to this puzzle, the notions of knowledge and belief that are used in ordinary epistemic and doxastic symbolic systems are too idealised. Hence, those systems cannot be used to model ordinary human or human-like agents' beliefs. At best, they can describe idealised individuals. The systems in this paper can be used to symbolise not only the doxastic states of perfectly rational individuals, but also the beliefs of finite humans. Proof-theoretically, I will use a tableau technique. Every system is combined with predicate logic with necessary identity and ‘possibilist’ quantifiers and modal logic with two kinds of modal operators for relative and absolute necessity. The semantics is a possible world semantics. Finally, I prove that every tableau system in the paper is sound and complete with respect to its semantics.

The paper develops a set of quantified temporal alethic boulesic doxastic systems. Every system in this set consists of five parts: a ‘quantified’ part, a temporal part, a modal (alethic) part, a boulesic part and a doxastic part. There are no systems in the literature that combine all of these branches of logic. Hence, all systems in this paper are new. Every system is defined both semantically and proof-theoretically. The semantic apparatus consists of a kind of$$T \times W$$T×Wmodels, and the proof-theoretical apparatus of semantic tableaux. The ‘quantified part’ of the systems includes relational predicates and the identity symbol. The quantifiers are, in effect, a kind of possibilist quantifiers that vary over every object in the domain. The tableaux rules are classical. The alethic part contains two types of modal operators for absolute and historical necessity and possibility. According to ‘boulesic logic’ (the logic of the will), ‘willing’ (‘consenting’, ‘rejecting’, ‘indifference’ and ‘non-indifference’) is a kind of modal operator. Doxastic logic is the logic of beliefs; it treats ‘believing’ (and ‘conceiving’) as a kind of modal operator. I will explore some possible relationships between these different parts, and investigate some principles that include more than one type of logical expression. I will show that every tableau system in the paper is sound and complete with respect to its semantics. Finally, I consider an example of a valid argument and an example of an invalid sentence. I show how one can use semantic tableaux to establish validity and invalidity and read off countermodels. These examples illustrate the philosophical usefulness of the systems that are introduced in this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between the so-called golden rule and the so-called platinum rule. According to the golden rule (GR) you ought to treat others as you want to be treated by them; and according to the platinum rule (PR), you ought to treat others as they want to be treated by you. In this essay I argue for the following propositions. (1) (GR) and (PR) are logically independent. (2) (PR) can be derived from (GR) given that you want to be treated by others as they want to be treated by you. (3) (GR) is derivable from (PR) given that others want to be treated by you as you want to be treated by them. And (4) (GR) and (PR) are equivalent given that you want to be treated by others as they want to be treated by you, and others want to be treated by you as you want to be treated by them. I consider some possible interpretations of (GR) and (PR), and I also address the question of whether (GR) is more plausible than (PR) or vice versa, or whether they are complementary. I discuss one argument for the view that (PR) is better than (GR) and mention several arguments for the view that (GR) is better than (PR). The discussion suggests that (GR) and (PR) are complementary.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a set of temporal alethic–deontic systems, i.e. systems that include temporal, alethic and deontic operators. All in all we will consider 2,147,483,648 systems. All systems are described both semantically and proof theoretically. We use a kind of possible world semantics, inspired by the so-called T x W semantics, to characterize our systems semantically and semantic tableaux to characterize them proof theoretically. We also show that all systems are sound and complete with respect to their semantics.

This paper discusses a new aporia, the aporia of future directed beliefs. This aporia contains three propositions: (1) It is possible that there is someone who is infallible that believes something about the future that is not historically settled, (2) it is necessary that someone is infallible if and only if it is necessary that everything she believes is true, and (3) it is necessary that all our beliefs are historically settled. Every claim in this set is intuitively plausible, and there are interesting arguments for or against each of them. Nevertheless, {(1), (2), (3)} entails a contradiction. Consequently, at least one of the sentences in this set must be false. I consider some possible solutions to the problem and discuss some arguments for and against these solutions. Five solutions, in particular, stand out. Three solutions reject (1), one solution rejects (2), and one solution rejects (3). No solution is without problems, and it is not obvious which one we should choose. Yet, we have to give up at least one sentence in {(1), (2), (3)}. This is the nature of an aporia.

The Moral Law is fulfilled iff everything that ought to be the case is the case, and The Good is realised in a possible world w at a time t iff w is deontically accessible from w at t. In this paper, I will introduce a set of temporal modal deontic systems with propositional quantifiers that can be used to prove some interesting theorems about The Moral Law and The Good. First, I will describe a set of systems without any propositional quantifiers. Then, I will show how these systems can be extended by a couple of propositional quantifiers. I will use a kind of TxW semantics to describe the systems semantically and semantic tableaux to describe them syntactically. Every system will include a constant · that stands for The Good. ‘·’ is read as ‘The Good is realised’. All systems that contain the propositional quantifiers will also include a constant '*' that stands for The Moral Law. '*' is read as ‘The Moral Law is fulfilled’. I will prove that all systems (without the propositional quantifiers) are sound and complete with respect to their semantics and that all systems (including the extended systems) are sound with respect to their semantics. It is left as an open question whether or not the extended systems are complete.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a set of quantified temporal alethic-deontic systems, i.e., systems that combine temporal alethicdeontic logic with predicate logic. We consider three basic kinds of systems: constant, variable and constant and variable domain systems. These systems can be augmented by either necessary or contingent identity, and every system that includes identity can be combined with descriptors. All logics are described both semantically and proof theoretically. We use a kind of possible world semantics, inspired by the so-called T × W semantics, to characterize them semantically and semantic tableaux to characterize them proof theoretically. We also show that all systems are sound and complete with respect to their semantics.

A contrary-to-duty obligation (sometimes called a reparational duty) is a conditional obligation where the condition is forbidden, e.g. “if you have hurt your friend, you should apologise”, “if he is guilty, he should confess”, and “if she will not keep her promise to you, she ought to call you”. It has proven very difficult to find plausible formalisations of such obligations in most deontic systems. In this paper, we will introduce and explore a set of temporal alethic dyadic deontic systems, i.e., systems that include temporal, alethic and dyadic deontic operators. We will then show how it is possible to use our formal apparatus to symbolise contrary-to-duty obligations and to solve the so-called contrary-to-duty (obligation) paradox, a problem well known in deontic logic. We will argue that this response to the puzzle has many attractive features. Semantic tableaux are used to characterise our systems proof theoretically and a kind of possible world semantics, inspired by the so-called T× W semantics, to characterise them semantically. Our models contain several different accessibility relations and a preference relation between possible worlds, which are used in the definitions of the truth conditions for the various operators. Soundness results are obtained for every tableau system and completeness results for a subclass of them.

In this paper, I will develop a new theory of the nature of happiness, or “perfect happiness.” I will examine what perfect happiness is and what it is not and I will try to answer some fundamental questions about this property. According to the theory, which I shall call “the fulfillment theory,” perfect happiness is perfect fulfillment. The analysis of happiness in this paper is a development of the old idea that happiness is getting what you want and can be classified as a kind of desire-satisfaction theory. According to the fulfillment theory of happiness, it is necessarily the case that an individual x is perfectly happy if and only if all x’s wants are fulfilled. The interpretation of this basic definition is important, since the consequences of the particular version defended in this essay are radically different from the consequences of many other popular theories of happiness. The fulfillment theory is also quite different from most other desire-satisfaction theories of happiness. We will see that it has many interesting consequences and that it can be defended against some potentially serious counterarguments. The upshot is that the analysis of (perfect) happiness developed in the present paper is quite attractive.

In Paradoxa Stoicorum, the Roman philosopher Cicero defends six important Stoic theses. Since these theses seem counterintuitive, and it is not likely that the average person would agree with them, they were generally called "paradoxes". According to the third paradox, (P3), (all) transgressions (wrong actions) are equal and (all) right actions are equal. According to one interpretation of this principle, which I will call (P3′), it means that if it is forbidden that A and it is forbidden that B, then not-A is as good as not-B; and if it is permitted that A and it is permitted that B, then A is as good as B. In this paper, I show how it is possible to prove this thesis in dyadic deontic logic. I also try to defend (P3′) against some philosophical counterarguments. Furthermore, I address the claim that (P3′) is not a correct interpretation of Cicero’s third paradox and the assertion that it does not matter whether (P3′) is true or not. I argue that it does matter whether (P3′) is true or not, but acknowledge that (P3′) is perhaps a slightly different principle than Cicero’s thesis. The upshot is that (P3′) seems to be a plausible principle, and that at least one part of paradox III in Cicero’s Paradoxa Stoicorum appears to be defensible.

Many interesting philosophical principles include two kinds of modalities, e.g. epistemic and doxastic, alethic and epistemic, or alethic and deontic modalities.The purpose of this essay is to describe a set of bimodal systems, i.e. systems that include two kinds of modal operators, in which it is possible to investigate some formalizations of such principles. All in all we will consider 4,194,304 logics. All logics are described semantically and proof theoretically. We use possible world semantics to characterize the logics semantically, and both axiomatic systems and semantic tableaux to characterize them proof theoretically. We show that all systems are sound and complete with respect to their semantics and we consider some relationships between the various systems.

In this paper, I will develop a set of boulesic-doxastic tableau systems and prove that they are sound and complete. Boulesic-doxastic logic consists of two main parts: a boulesic part and a doxastic part. By ‘boulesic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of the will’, and by ‘doxastic logic’ I mean ‘the logic of belief’. The first part deals with ‘boulesic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of boulesic expression: ‘individual x wants it to be the case that’ and ‘individual x accepts that it is the case that’. The second part deals with ‘doxastic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and theorems. I will concentrate on two types of doxastic expression: ‘individual x believes that’ and ‘it is imaginable to individual x that’. Boulesic-doxastic logic investigates how these concepts are related to each other. Boulesic logic is a new kind of logic. Doxastic logic has been around for a while, but the approach to this branch of logic in this paper is new. Each system is combined with modal logic with two kinds of modal operators for historical and absolute necessity and predicate logic with necessary identity and ‘possibilist’ quantifiers. I use a kind of possible world semantics to describe the systems semantically. I also sketch out how our basic language can be extended with propositional quantifiers. All the systems developed in this paper are new.

In this paper, I will discuss some examples of the so-called contrary-to-duty paradox, a well-known puzzle in deontic logic. A contrary-to-duty obligation is an obligation telling us what ought to be the case if something forbidden is true, for example: ‘If she is guilty, she should confess’. Contrary-to-duty obligations are important in our moral and legal thinking. Therefore, we want to be able to find an adequate symbolisation of such obligations in some logical system, a task that has turned out to be difficult. This is shown by the so-called contrary-to-duty paradox. I will investigate and evaluate one kind of solution to this problem that has been suggested in the literature, which I will call the ‘counterfactual solution’. I will use some recent systems that combine not only counterfactual logic and deontic logic, but also temporal logic, in my analysis of the paradox. I will argue that the counterfactual solution has many attractive features and that it can give a fairly satisfactory answer to some examples of the contrary-to-duty paradox, but that it nevertheless has some serious problems. The conclusion is that, notwithstanding the many attractive features of the solution, there seem to be other approaches to the paradox that are more promising.

In this paper I show that one version of motivational internalism follows from the so-called ideal observer theory. Let us call the version of the ideal observer theory used in this essay (IOT). According to (IOT), it is necessarily the case that it ought to be that A if and only if every ideal observer wants it to be the case that A. We shall call the version of motivational internalism that follows from (IOT) (moral) conditional belief motivational internalism (CBMI). According to (CBMI), it is necessarily the case that, for every x: if x were an ideal observer, it would be the case that x believes that it ought to be that A only if x wants it to be the case that A. Given that it is necessarily true that no ideal observer has any false beliefs, (IOT) entails (CBMI). Or, so I shall argue.

A contrary-to-duty obligation is an obligation telling us what ought to be the case if something that is wrong is true. For example: ‘If you have done something bad, you should make amends’. Doing something bad is wrong, but if it is true that you did do something bad, it ought to be the case that you make amends. Here are some other examples: ‘If he is guilty, he should confess’, ‘If you have hurt your friend, you should apologise to her’, ‘If she will not keep her promise to him, she ought to call him’, ‘If the books are not returned by the due date, you must pay a fine’. Alternatively, we might say that a contrary-to-duty obligation is a conditional obligation where the condition (in the obligation) is forbidden, or where the condition is fulfilled only if a primary obligation is violated. In the first example, he should not be guilty; but if he is, he should confess. You should not have hurt your friend; but if you have, you should apologise. She should keep her promise to him; but if she will not, she ought to call him. The books ought to be returned by the due date; but if they are not, you must pay a fine. Contrary-to-duty obligations are important in our moral and legal thinking. They turn up in discussions concerning guilt, blame, confession, restoration, reparation, punishment, repentance, retributive justice, compensation, apologies, damage control, and so forth. The rationale of a contrary-to-duty obligation is the fact that most of us do neglect our primary duties from time to time and yet it is reasonable to believe that we should make the best of a bad situation, or at least that it matters what we do when this is the case. We want to find an adequate symbolisation of such obligations in some logical system. However, it has turned out to be difficult to do that. This is shown by the so-called contrary-to-duty (obligation) paradox, sometimes called the contrary-to-duty imperative paradox. The contrary-to-duty paradox arises when we try to formalise certain intuitively consistent sets of ordinary language sentences, sets that include at least one contrary-to-duty obligation sentence, by means of ordinary counterparts available in various monadic deontic logics, such as the so-called Standard Deontic Logic and similar systems. In many of these systems the resulting sets are inconsistent in the sense that it is possible to deduce contradictions from them, or else they violate some other intuitively plausible condition, for example that the members of the sets should be independent of each other. This article discusses this paradox and some solutions that have been suggested in the literature. (Submitted: 2017-10-23; Published in 2022)

The paper develops a Kantian view of the highest good and the relation between virtue and happiness. Several Kantian theses are defended, among them the thesis that the highest good is realized only if every virtuous individual is happy, the view that virtue is neither necessary nor sufficient for happiness, and the proposition that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for the worthiness of being happy. The author argues that the highest good ought to be realized and that it ought to be that everyone who is virtuous is happy. To prove these claims, the author will use techniques developed by modern deontic logicians. According to Kant, we do not have an immediate duty to promote our own happiness, the aim of morality being not personal satisfaction but rather virtue and the good will. The important question is not “How do I become happy?” but “How do I become good?”. The arguments in this paper support this view.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a set of counterfactual temporal alethic-deontic systems, i.e. systems that include counterfactual, temporal, alethic and deontic operators. All systems are described both semantically and proof theoretically. We use a kind of possible world semantics, inspired by the so-called T x W semantics, to characterise our systems semantically and semantic tableaux to characterise them proof theoretically. Our models contain several different accessibility relations and a similarity relation between possible worlds, which are used in the definitions of the truth conditions for the various operators. Soundness results are obtained for every tableau system and completeness results for a subclass of them.

We often use sentences that seem conditional in nature when we reason about normative issues, e.g. ‘If you have promised to do something, you should keep your promise’ and ‘If you have done something bad, you should apologize’. We seem to think that promise-making in some sense commits us to promise-keeping and that acting bad in some sense creates an obligation to apologize. It is, however, not obvious how we should symbolize such sentences in a formal language. The purpose of this essay is to investigate some different possible formalizations of different conditional obligation sentences. I consider seven different interpretations of the concept of commitment or conditional obligation and I say something about the logical properties of these different interpretations.

This paper introduces a new aporia, the aporia of omniscience. The puzzle consists of three propositions: (1) It is possible that there is someone who is necessarily omniscient and infallible, (2) It is necessary that all beliefs are historically settled, and (3) It is possible that the future is open. Every sentence in this set is intuitively reasonable and there are prima facie plausible arguments for each of them. However, the whole set {(1), (2), (3)} is inconsistent. Therefore, it seems to be that case that at least one of the propositions in this set must be false. I discuss some possible solutions to the problem and consider some arguments for and against these solutions.

According to the so-called truth norm, we ought to believe that A if and only if A is true. There are many possible interpretations of this norm. What does 'ought‘ in this norm mean? Does 'ought‘ have a wide or a narrow scope, etc.? In this paper, I will investigate one version of this norm and I will discuss two arguments for it. The 'ought‘ in the paper will be interpreted as a kind of 'rational‘ ought that takes wide scope. I will call the first argument for the truth norm 'the extrapolation argument‘ and the second argument 'the abductive argument.‘ According to the extrapolation argument, we 'derive‘ the truth norm from a reflection on what it means to be a perfect believer. According to the abductive argument, the truth norm is supported by the fact that it can be used to deduce many other plausible doxastic norms. If this argument is successful, the truth norm can be conceived as the fundamental norm of (theoretical) rationality (or wisdom).

The paper develops a Kantian view of the highest good and the relation between virtue and happiness. Several Kantian theses are defended, among them the thesis that the highest good is realized only if every virtuous individual is happy, the view that virtue is neither necessary nor sufficient for happiness, and the proposition that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for the worthiness of being happy. The author argues that the highest good ought to be realized and that it ought to be that everyone who is virtuous is happy. To prove these claims, the author will use techniques developed by modern deontic logicians. According to Kant, we do not have an immediate duty to promote our own happiness, the aim of morality being not personal satisfaction but rather virtue and the good will. The important question is not “How do I become happy?” but “How do I become good?”. The arguments in this paper support this view.

Deontic logic is a branch of logic that investigates normative concepts, systems of norms and normative reasoning. The formal languages of deontic logic include normative concepts that correspond to natural language notions such as ought, obligatory, permissible, forbidden and optional. The present book is an introduction to this branch of logic. Several basic deontic systems are described and some of their properties are explored. Every system is characterized both semantically using possible world semantics and axiomatically. The final chapter includes soundness and completeness results for every system. The focus of the study is formal, but some philosophical questions are also raised, in particular: What is the meaning of the word "ought" and other normative notions as they occur in ordinary and philosophical discussions? Several distinctions between different kinds of obligations are considered, for instance the distinctions between prima facie and all things considered obligations and between conditional and unconditional obligations. The book is aimed at people with no prior knowledge of deontic logic but with some acquaintance with classical logic including some set theory. It should interest anyone who wants to know more about this area.

Logiska Övningar är en övningsbok i logik och en introduktionsbok i teoretisk filosofi. Den är indelad i sju kapitel. Varje kapitel, förutom det första, behandlar en eller flera klassiska grenar av den teoretiska filosofin. Det första kapitlet är en allmän inledning till boken och till filosofi som ämne. Övriga kapitel behandlar följande områden. Logik & Argumentationsteori (kapitel 2). Hur bör vi tänka och argumentera? Kunskapsteori (kapitel 3). Vad är kunskap och hur får vi kunskap om verkligheten? Metafysik (kapitel 4). Hur är verkligheten ytterst beskaffad? Vad existerar? Vetenskapsfilosofi (kapitel 5). Vad är vetenskap? Hur får vi vetenskaplig kunskap? Språkfilosofi (kapitel 6). Vad är ett språk? Hur förhåller sig språket till vårt tänkande och till verkligheten? Medvetandefilosofi (kapitel 7). Vad är en människa? Hur förhåller sig kropp och själ till varandra? Logiska Övningar innehåller mer än 5000 tankekedjor eller argument. Genom att studera dessa kan läsaren öva upp sin förmåga att analysera och värdera olika filosofiska härledningar, samt att tänka och resonera logiskt. Boken kan användas i undervisning i filosofi och logik på en grundläggande nivå eller för självstudier. Läsningen kompletteras lämpligen med en eller flera introduktionsböcker till logik, som behandlar olika fundamentala logiska fakta och metoder. Produkt information Publicerad: September 14, 2019 Språk: Svenska Format: Paperback Antal sidor: 708 sidor

Den här boken är en övningsbok i logik och en kort introduktion till metaetik. Den innehåller nio kapitel. Det första kapitlet är en allmän inledning till moralfilosofin. Det innehåller information om vad metaetik är och om hur metaetiken förhåller sig till den normativa etiken, till praktisk (eller tillämpad) etik och till deskriptiv moralfilosofi. Kapitel 2 handlar om språkfilosofiska frågor. Kapitel 3 handlar om medvetandefilosofiska frågor. Kapitel 4 behandlar kunskapsteoretiska frågor. Kapitel 5 handlar om metafysiska frågor. Kapitel 6 handlar om logiska frågor. Kapitel 7 handlar om övriga metaetiska frågor, om relativism, objektivism och subjektivism. Kapitel 8 innehåller blandade övningar i predikatlogik. Kapitel 9 innehåller blandade övningar i modallogik och deontisk logik. Den här boken innehåller en stor mängd argument. Genom att studera dessa kan läsaren öva upp sin förmåga att analysera och värdera olika filosofiska härledningar, samt att tänka och resonera logiskt. Boken kan användas i undervisning i filosofi och logik på en grundläggande nivå eller för självstudier. Läsningen kompletteras lämpligen med en eller flera introduktionsböcker till logik, som behandlar olika fundamentala logiska fakta och metoder. OBS: De flesta argument i denna bok har tidigare publicerats i boken Logiska Övningar: En Introduktion till Praktisk Filosofi eller i boken Logiska Övningar: En Introduktion till Teoretisk Filosofi och många lösningar har tidigare publicerats i boken Facit till Några Argument i ”Logiska Övningar: En Introduktion till Praktisk Filosofi”, även om den också innehåller många argument som är nya. Produkt information Publicerad: Juni 24, 2021 Språk: Svenska Format: Paperback Antal sidor: 448 sidor

Den här boken är en övningsbok i logik och en kort introduktion till politisk filosofi och rättsfilosofi. Tonvikten ligger på den politiska filosofin. Boken innehåller tio kapitel. Det första kapitlet är en allmän inledning till politisk filosofi och rättsfilosofi. Kapitel 2 handlar om konservatism. Kapitel 3 handlar om liberalism. Kapitel 4 handlar om socialism. Kapitel 5 handlar om anarkism. Kapitel 6 handlar om kommunism. Kapitel 7 handlar om ekologism. Kapitel 8 innehåller blandade övningar i politisk filosofi och rättsfilosofi. De flesta argument i detta kapitel kan analyseras med hjälp av satslogik. Kapitel 9 innehåller blandade övningar i politisk filosofi och rättsfilosofi. För att analysera argumenten i detta kapitel krävs i regel predikatlogik. Även Kapitel 10 innehåller blandade övningar i politisk filosofi och rättsfilosofi. För att analysera argumenten i detta kapitel krävs i regel modallogik eller deontisk logik. Den här boken innehåller en stor mängd argument. Genom att studera dessa kan läsaren öva upp sin förmåga att analysera och värdera olika filosofiska härledningar, samt att tänka och resonera logiskt. Boken kan användas i undervisning i filosofi och logik på en grundläggande nivå eller för självstudier. Läsningen kompletteras lämpligen med en eller flera introduktionsböcker till logik, som behandlar olika fundamentala logiska fakta och metoder. OBS: De flesta argument i denna bok har tidigare publicerats i boken Logiska Övningar: En Introduktion till Praktisk Filosofi och många lösningar har tidigare publicerats i boken Facit till Några Argument i ”Logiska Övningar: En Introduktion till Praktisk Filosofi”, även om den också innehåller ett antal argument som är nya. Produkt information Publicerad: April 15, 2021 Språk: Svenska Format: Paperback Antal sidor: 216 sidor

According to the so-called golden rule, we ought to treat others as we want to be treated by them. This rule, in one form or another, is part of every major religion, and it has been accepted by many philosophers with various ethical views. However, if the literal golden rule is interpreted as an absolute rule, it is problematic. In this paper, I introduce a new version of this famous principle that is similar to various classical definitions. According to this variant, the rule can be formulated in the following way: If you want it to be the case that if x were in your situation and you were in x’s situation then x would do H to you, and you have a good will, then you ought to do H to x. I show how this version can be derived from a small set of highly plausible premises, and I defend it against some of the most interesting and/or common objections against the golden rule in the literature. I conclude that we have good reason to believe in this rendition of the principle.

This paper will introduce and explore a set of quantified counterfactual temporal alethic-deontic systems, that is, systems that combine counterfactual temporal alethic-deontic logic with predicate logic. I will consider three types of systems: constant, variable and constant and variable domain systems. Every system can be combined with either necessary or contingent identity. All logics are described both semantically and proof theoretically. I use a kind of possible world semantics, inspired by the so-called T x W semantics, to characterise them semantically and semantic tableaux to characterise them proof theoretically. Our models contain several different accessibility relations and a similarity relation between possible worlds, which are used in the definitions of the truth conditions for the various operators. Soundness results are obtained for every tableau system and completeness results for a subclass of these.