<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Straßer, Christian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Meheus, Joke</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aleks Knoks</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deontic Reasoning on the Basis of Consistency Considerations</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Deonticconflictsposeanimportantchallengetodeonticlogicians. The standard account standard deontic logic, &lt;strong&gt;SDL&lt;/strong&gt; is not apt for addressing this challenge since it trivializes con flicts. Two main stratagems for gaining conflict-tolerance have been proposed: to weaken &lt;strong&gt;SDL&lt;/strong&gt; in various ways, and to contextualize the reign of &lt;strong&gt;SDL&lt;/strong&gt; to consistent subsets of the premise set. The latter began with the work of van Fraassen and has been further developed by Horty. In this paper we characterize this second approach in general terms. We also study three basic ways to contextualize SDL and supplement each of these with a dynamic proof theory in the framework of adaptive logics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>