In a debate club environment.
In: Other
A proper use of “begging the question” involves assuming the final argument goal is simply correct in your reasoning. It’s a kind of circular reasoning, rather than going from facts + logic to conclusions, you are making assumptions in your conclusion that just make it your victory.
For example, my bed sheets are better than yours because they have a higher thread count. That’s my argument. I’m rather assuming that thread count is the measure of what makes linen “good” without explaining it, you are simply expected to already know that and agree with me.
.. As opposed to the “wrong” use of begging the question. Some people say “thing A happened… but that begs the question of what went wrong to cause thing A to happen?” well that’s incorrect. It may be better to say “but that leads to the follow-up question” instead, or something like that.
It’s also known as circular reasoning, and is a common fallacy. By presenting the “question” up front, then stating it as though it is true at the end, you persuade the audience to accept it as fact.
[removed]
Take the argument I found online;
“Wool sweaters are better than nylon because wool sweaters have a higher wool count.” There is more than one problem with this argument but the ‘begging the question’ part is that you are using an intrinsic characteristic of the premise (wool sweaters have a wool count) to prove the conclusion. You haven’t proved or even stated that a high wool count is desirable in a sweater, and if you did prove that why would you argue that it is better than nylon if that is your standard?
What people are mistaking for the informal fallacy ‘begging the question’ (informal fallacies are informal because they don’t deal with the form of the argument, they aren’t like ‘less formal’ to mean less important) is a different rhetorical device known as ‘just asking questions’. If you want an example of the ‘just asking questions’ phenomena then look no further than Tucker Carlson, it is his entire schtick. The ‘just asking questions’ device is a problem because in order to accept that argument you box into the question – whether the question is valid or logical or not, and it removes the onus on the person doing it to present actual evidence for their claim because they are ‘just asking questions’.
As is common with rhetorical devices and informal fallacy, they aren’t that if there is a valid foundation. The slippery slope informal fallacy can’t be used if the conclusion you reach is commonly understood. Like, it isn’t a slippery slope argument if you say “Don’t spread gasoline all over these wood floors you might start a fire.” There isn’t a slippery slope between spilling gasoline on wood and combustion. Similarly, if you are asking a question because evidence has guided you there; like you are looking at someone with powder residue on their hands and a divorce decree on the table and a dead wife on the floor – it is not a fallacy to ask “Say, did you kill your wife?”
Begging the question is circular reasoning. The example I always think of: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.”
‘Begging the question’ is when your chosen assumptions/definitions give the desired result, but those assumptions are not actually agreed upon. Therefore, you’ve basically assumed or smuggled in your conclusion into your premises.
For instance, in a debate about abortion, someone might say:
1. Murder is the killing of human life.
2. A fetus is human life.
3. Abortion kills a fetus.
4. Therefore abortion is murder.
This is a deductively valid argument, in that conclusion (statement 4) does follow from the premesise #1-#3. However, do the people you are arguing against believe all 3 assumptions? Almost certainly not, and so you’re not actually making a useful point.
To show both sides, some pro-choice people might believe something closer to:
1. Murder is the killing of a human person.
2. A fetus is not a person.
3. Abortion kills a fetus.
4. Therefore abortion kills a non-person (i.e. it is not equal to murder).
This is also deductively valid, but similarly fails to make any useful point.
If either person were to present this argument to the opposing side, they are ‘begging the question’, because premise 1&2 are actually the core of the disagreement, but they assume them and then make their argument anyway.
This has no persuasive power, because *obviously* people who define murder differently, and concieve (pun not intended) of fetuses differently, will disagree on whether it is murder!
Its like the show jeopardy, the number 4 reached when you at this eaqual number together, which begs the question “what is 2?”
Specifically, it is when the arguments conclusion is assumed in the premise. Essentially arguing in a circle.
Begs the question means that the question implies the answer. For example “When did you stop beating your wife?” Implies that you beat your wife. It’s a shame that this important logical point has now come to mean leads to the question.
“begging the question” is an archaic term form circular argument. it has nothing to do with begging any question. when someone says “this begs the question”, they are basically accusing you of using circular logic.
Latest Answers