Different notions of the consistency of obligations collapse in standard deontic logic. In justification logics, which feature explicit reasons for obligations, the situation is different. Their strength depends on a constant specification and on the available set of operations for combining different reasons. We present different consistency principles in justification logic and compare their logical strength. We propose a novel semantics for which justification logics with the explicit version of axiom D, jd, are complete for arbitrary constant specifications. We then discuss the philosophical implications with regard to some deontic paradoxes.

翻译：义务一致性的不同概念在标准道义逻辑中趋于一致。而在强调义务的明确理由的辩护逻辑中，情况则有所不同。其强度取决于常规定时规范以及可用于组合不同理由的操作集合。我们提出了辩护逻辑中的不同一致性原则，并比较了它们的逻辑强度。我们提出了一种新的语义，使得包含公理D的明确版本jd的辩护逻辑对任意常规定时规范都是完备的。最后，我们讨论了这些结果与一些道义悖论相关的哲学含义。