Begging the Question
Read this section on the fallacy of "begging the question". When we formalize the examples in the premise, they are not substantively different from the conclusion. Look out for "question begging" arguments in your life.
Consider the following argument:
Capital punishment is justified for crimes such as rape and murder
because it is quite legitimate and appropriate for the state to put to
death someone who has committed such heinous and inhuman acts.
The premise indicator, "because" denotes the premise and (derivatively) the
conclusion of this argument. In standard form, the argument is this:
- It is legitimate and appropriate for the state to put to death someone
who commits rape or murder.
- Therefore, capital punishment is justified for crimes such as rape and
murder.
You should notice something peculiar about this argument: the premise is
essentially the same claim as the conclusion. The only difference is that the
premise spells out what capital punishment means (the state putting criminals to
death) whereas the conclusion just refers to capital punishment by name, and
the premise uses terms like "legitimate" and "appropriate" whereas the
conclusion uses the related term, "justified". But these differences don't add up
to any real differences in meaning. Thus, the premise is essentially saying the
same thing as the conclusion. This is a problem: we want our premise to
provide a reason for accepting the conclusion. But if the premise is the same
claim as the conclusion, then it can't possibly provide a reason for accepting the
conclusion! Begging the question occurs when one (either explicitly or
implicitly) assumes the truth of the conclusion in one or more of the premises.
Begging the question is thus a kind of circular reasoning.
One interesting feature of this fallacy is that formally there is nothing wrong with
arguments of this form. Here is what I mean. Consider an argument that
explicitly commits the fallacy of begging the question. For example,
- Capital punishment is morally permissible
- Therefore, capital punishment is morally permissible
Now, apply any method of assessing validity to this argument and you will see
that it is valid by any method. If we use the informal test (by trying to imagine
that the premises are true while the conclusion is false), then the argument
passes the test, since any time the premise is true, the conclusion will have to be
true as well (since it is the exact same statement). Likewise, the argument is
valid by our formal test of validity, truth tables. But while this argument is
technically valid, it is still a really bad argument. Why? Because the point of
giving an argument in the first place is to provide some reason for thinking the
conclusion is true for those who don't already accept the conclusion. But if one
doesn't already accept the conclusion, then simply restating the conclusion in a
different way isn't going to convince them. Rather, a good argument will
provide some reason for accepting the conclusion that is sufficiently
independent of that conclusion itself. Begging the question utterly fails to do
this and this is why it counts as an informal fallacy. What is interesting about
begging the question is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the
argument formally.
Whether or not an argument begs the question is not always an easy matter to
sort out. As with all informal fallacies, detecting it requires a careful
understanding of the meaning of the statements involved in the argument. Here
is an example of an argument where it is not as clear whether there is a fallacy of
begging the question:
Christian belief is warranted because according to Christianity there exists
a being called "the Holy Spirit" which reliably guides Christians towards
the truth regarding the central claims of Christianity.
One might think that there is a kind of circularity (or begging the question) involved in this argument since the argument appears to assume the truth of Christianity in justifying the claim that Christianity is true. But whether or not this argument really does beg the question is something on which there is much debate within the sub-field of philosophy called epistemology ("study of knowledge"). The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues persuasively that the argument does not beg the question, but being able to assess that argument takes patient years of study in the field of epistemology (not to mention a careful engagement with Plantinga's work). As this example illustrates, the issue of whether an argument begs the question requires us to draw on our general knowledge of the world. This is the mark of an informal, rather than formal, fallacy.
Source: Matthew J. Van Cleave
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.