Begging the QuestionAlias: Circular Argument Circulus in Probando Petitio Principii Vicious CircleTaxonomy:Logical Fallacy>Informal Fallacy> Begging the QuestionEtymology:The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debatethat is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.Misrule of Thumb:Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.Therefore, to beg the question is to argue fallaciously.Note:A "misrule of thumb" is a misleading "rule of thumb". I use the term to describe anargumentthat commits the very fallacy it is intended to showfallacious, as the above argument itself begs the question.Form:Any form of argument in which theconclusionoccurs as one of thepremisses. More generally, achain of argumentsin which thefinal conclusionis a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.Example:To cast abortion as a solely private moral question,is to lose touch with common sense: How human beings treat one another is practically the definition of a public moral matter. Of course, there are many private aspects of human relations, but the question whether one human being should be allowed fatally to harm another is not one of them. Abortion is an inescapably public matter.Source:Helen M. Alvar,The Abortion Controversy, Greenhaven, 1995, p. 23.AnalysisExposition:To beg the question is to assume something that you have no right to assume. What don't you have a right to assume? The conclusion itself, obviously, or anypropositionthat is just the conclusion stated in different words. Clearly, to use any argument in which the conclusion is also one of the premisses is to reason in a circle: reasoning from the premisses to the conclusion brings you back to where you started.

The simplest type of circular argument is an argument with a single premiss that is the same as its conclusionsee the first diagram to the right, where "P" stands for "premiss" and "C" for "conclusion" and the arrows indicate the direction of reasoning. Since P and C are the same proposition, we can also represent this argument with the second diagram, which shows that this is the smallest circle one can reason in.

Now, this type of circularity is so obvious that it's not likely to occur in a real argument. Instead, real arguments will probably reason in larger circles; for instance, simply including additional premisses will make it difficult to spot the one that's the same as the conclusion. The next diagram shows an example with three premisses, the third of which is the same as the conclusion. However, the more premisses, the harder it will be to detect the circularity or identify which premiss is the same as the conclusion.

An additional way that circularity is concealed is by means of multiple arguments that link together in a chain or tree-like structure. For instance, consider a chain of arguments with three links, each of which is a simple, one-premissed argument. The three arguments are then joined by the fact that the conclusion of the first argument in the chain is also the premiss of the second argument, the conclusion of which is the premiss of the third argumentsee the last diagram. Finally, the conclusion of the last argument in the chain is the same as the premiss of the first argument, which loops the chain back on itself.Circularity is more difficult to detect in such complex arguments, but it's usually additionally concealed by the deceptive use of language: the question-begger states the same thing in different words, uses loaded language that presumes the point at issue, and often leaves unstated the premiss that creates the circularity. As a result, simply diagramming an argument as shown here may not reveal the circularity without first untangling the confusing use of language, which is part of what makes begging the question an informal fallacy in logic.Exposure: Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is avalidatingform of argument, that is, every argument that begs the question isvalidif this seems surprising or confusing to you, see the Q&A, below. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument issound. What is wrong, then, with begging the question?First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions,p1,p2,,pnare equivalent by arguing as follows, where "pq" means thatpimpliesq:p1p2 pnp1Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge. The phrase "begs the question" has come to be used to mean "raises the question" or "suggests the question", as in "that begs the question" followed by the question supposedly begged. The following headlines are examples:Warm Weather Begs the Question:To Water or Not to Water Yard PlantsLatest Internet Fracas Begs the Question:Who's Driving the Internet Bus?Hot Holiday Begs Big Question:Can the Party Continue?This is a confusing usage apparently based upon a literal misreading of the phrase "begs the question". It should be avoided, and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy.Resources: Gary Curtis, "Please Stop Begging that Question You're Raising",The Editorial Eye, 2/2007 Mark Liberman,"'Begging the question': we have answers",Language Log, 4/29/2010Reader Response:In your Etymological Fallacy "Exposition" section, you point out that "the meanings of words change over time." I state, with zero evidence beyond personal experience, that today most people use the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". I have found very few people who were aware of its "Petitio Principii" definition. When terms like "Circular Argument" are currently far more clear to the general population than "begs the question", why do you suggest that "begs the question" should cling to its older definition as opposed to being dropped for its current common usage? As I mentioned, I have no hard numerical evidence to back up my claim, but I believe the postulate would prove true if studied. I'm sure there would be variance between a Harvard Campus study vs. a ghetto study, but I believe the median American value would support it.Dan RotelliI think that you're right about the common use of the phrase "begs the question", and the newspaper headlines above are evidence that it usually has the meaning "raises the question" among editors and journalists. You also make a good point about the alternative name "circular argument", or "circular reasoning", for this fallacy. These are far better names than the traditional one, since they give an idea of the logical nature of the mistake, as well as being more memorable. "Begging the question" has always been a puzzling phrase: Why "beg"? What question? Moreover, "begging the question" is a poor translation of the Latin phrase "petitio principii"; a more accurate translation might be something like "requesting first principles".However, these are good arguments for dropping the phrase "begs the question" altogether, rather than using it to mean "raises the question". It's still a puzzling phrase when used in the common newspaper sense: why "beg" the question? Why should newspaper editors use "begs" instead of the available alternatives of "raises", "suggests", or "invites" the question? At best, what started out as a misuse of logical jargon to impress the reader has turned into an idiom because neither the writer nor reader knew what the phrase meant.Perhaps saving the logical sense of "begs the question" for common use is a lost cause. However, it may not be a hopeless cause to get people to stop using the phraseat all.Q&A:Q:In Patrick J. Hurley'sA Concise Introduction to Logic, (10th ed.) a True/False exercise is posed: "Arguments that commit the fallacy of begging the question are normally valid."Now there certainly are a few things wrong with this question, not the least of which is that Hurley breaks "begging the question" down into three sub-categories, though most sources I've come in contact with cite only "circular reasoning" as the primary example of "begging the question." But he states, "The first, and most common, way of committing this fallacy [of begging the question] is by leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion."He then gives an example, "Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong." Here it seems to me that the example is an invalid argument. A key premise is missing, and thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the given premise. One might argue that the missing premise is implied, but if one accepts that then it seems the fallacy isn't an issue so much as the strength of the implied premise. After all, a valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. If there is only one premise and a second premise linking the first to the conclusion is missing, then it would be possible to have true premise(s) and a false conclusion, making the argument invalid. On this basis I answered "False" to the above question.John PocockA:I don't have the tenth edition of Hurley's text; the latest edition I own is the fifth, from 1994. In that edition, as well as earlier ones that I also have, he actually defines "begging the question" as a type of valid argument (p. 153). I think that this is a mistake, but it means that the question you answered "false" would be true by definition. Of course, this raisesnot "begs"the question whether the abortion argument is in fact an example of begging the question; if it's invalid, then it can't be an instance of begging the question.I think that it's a mistake to define "begging the question" as a type of valid argument because it's unnecessary, since all circular arguments are valid. As I mention in the Exposition above, begging the question is a validating form of argument. This sounds counter-intuitive, especially if you over-estimate the importance of validity. Validity is a virtue of arguments, but a good argument also needs to be sound. Moreover, as explained above, even soundness is not enough: a good argument must actually advance our knowledge or the debate we are in. Begging the question gets us nowhere, as we just end up going around in circles.Why is a circular argument necessarily valid? This surprising fact is a consequence of the definition of "valid": a valid argument is one in which the truth of the premisses necessitates the truth of the conclusion. If the conclusion of an argument is one of its premisses, then clearly the truth of its premisses necessitates the truth of that conclusion, sinceifthe premisses are true then the conclusionwhich is one of themmustbe true. Of course, the question of whether that premiss is true is what's at issue, which is why it's begged.In the fifth edition, Hurley gives the same example and apparently considers "all abortions are murders" to be asuppressedpremiss of the argument. So, Hurley takes the complete argument to be:Murder is morally wrong.All abortions are murders. (Suppressed)Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.This is certainly a valid argument. Moreover, it doesn't appear to be circular, since the conclusion is not one of the premisses. Why, then, does it beg the question?It begs the question because the word "murder" is not a morally-neutral word, such as "killing". All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. A person who kills someone in self-defense, a soldier who kills in battle, or a policeman who kills in the line of duty, is not a murderer. So, the first, unsuppressed premiss is really unnecessary, as the argument is valid without it:All abortions are murders.Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.Or, to spell out what "murder" means:All abortions are wrongful killings.Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.Which is clearly circular and, therefore, valid. In the original argument, the moral wrongness of abortion has been smuggled into the premiss via the morally loaded word "murder". This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular.Subfallacies: Question-Begging Analogy Loaded WordsSource:S. Morris Engel,With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition)(St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 144-149Resources: Robert Todd Carroll,"Begging the Question",Skeptic's Dictionary Douglas N. Walton, "The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question", inFallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 229-239Acknowledgements:Thanks to Christopher Mork for a criticism which led me to revise the Form and add the Etymology and to Paul Freda for a stylistic criticism.

Analysis of the Example:This argument begs the question because it assumes that abortion involves one human being fatally harming another. However, those who argue that abortion is a private matter reject this very premiss. In contrast, they believe that only one human being is involved in abortionthe womanand it is, therefore, her private decision.

Fallacy Name:Begging the QuestionAlternative Names:Petitio PrincipiiCircular ArgumentCirculus in ProbandoCirculus in DemonstrandoVicious CircleCategory:Fallacy of Weak Induction > Fallacy of PresumptionExplanation:This is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption, because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.A good argument in support of a claim will offerindependentevidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have becomedependentupon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:1. A is true because A is true.Examples and DiscussionHere is an example of this most simple form of begging the question:2. You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says, and the law is the law.Obviously driving on the right side of the road is mandated by law (in some countries, that is) - so when someone questions why we should do that, they are questioning the law. But if I am offering reasons to follow this law and I simply say "because that is the law," I am begging the question. I am assuming the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place.3. Affirmative Action can never be fair or just. You cannot remedy one injustice by committing another. (quoted from the forum)This is a classic example of a circular argument - the conclusion is that affirmative action cannot be fair or just, and the premise is that injustice cannot be remedied by something that is unjust (like affirmative action). But we cannot assume the unjust-ness of affirmative action when arguing that it is unjust.However, it is not usual for the matter to be so obvious. Instead, the chains are a bit longer:4. A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.5. A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true.

It's not uncommon to find religious arguments that commit the "Begging the Question" fallacy. This may be because the believers using these arguments are simply unfamiliar with basic logical fallacies, but an even more common reason may be that a person's commitment to the truth of their religious doctrines may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove.

Here is an oft repeated example of a chain like we saw in example #4 above:6. It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God's word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist.Obviously,ifthe Bible is God's word, then God exists (or at least did exist at one time). However, because the speaker is also claiming that the Bible is God's word, the assumption is made that God exists in order to demonstrate that God exists. The example can be simplified to:7. The Bible is true because God exists, and God exists because the Bible says so.This is what is known as circular reasoning - the circle is also sometimes called "vicious" because of how it works.Other examples, however, aren't quite so easy to spot because instead of assuming the conclusion, they are assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question. For example:8. The universe has a beginning. Every thing that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause called God.9. We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.10. After years of ignoring God, people have a hard time realizing what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad.Example #8 assumes (begs the question) two things: first, that the universe does indeed have a beginning and second, that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Both of these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand: whether or not there is a god.Example #9 is a common religious argument which begs the question in a slightly more subtle way. The conclusion, God exists, is based upon the premise that we can seeintelligent designin the universe. But the existence of intelligent design itself assumes the existence of a designer - that is to say, a god. A person making such an argument must defend this premise before the argument can have any force.Example #10 comes from our forum. In arguing that nonbelievers are not as moral as believers, it is assumed that a god exists and, more importantly, that a god is necessary for, or even relevant to, the establishment of norms of right and wrong. Because these assumptions are critical to the discussion at hand, the arguer is begging the question.It's not uncommon to find political arguments that commit the "Begging the Question" fallacy. This may be because so many people are simply unfamiliar with basic logical fallacies, but an even more common reason may be that a person's commitment to the truth of their political ideology may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove.Here are some examples of this fallacy in political discussions:11. Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. (from Hurley, p. 143)12. In arguing that abortion is not really a private moral matter, Fr. Frank A. Pavone, National Director Priests for Life, has written that "Abortion is our problem, and the problem of every human being. We are one human family. Nobody can be neutral on abortion. It involves the destruction of an entire group of human beings!"13. Executions are moral because we must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime.14. Youwouldthink that taxes should be lowered because you are a Republican [and therefore your argument about taxes should be rejected].15. Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries? (Quoted fromWith Good Reason, by S. Morris Engel)The argument in #11 presumes the truth of a premise that isn't stated: that abortion is murder. As this premise is far from obvious, is closely related to the point in question (is abortion immoral?), and the arguer doesn't bother mention it (much less support it), the argument begs the question.Another abortion argument occurs in #12 and has a similar problem, but the example is provided here because the problem is a bit more subtle. The question being begged is whether or not another "human being" is being destroyed - but that is exactly the point being disputed in abortion debates. By assuming it, the argument being made is that it is not a private matter between a woman and her doctor, but a public matter appropriate for the execution of laws.Example #13 has a similar problem, but with a different issue. Here, the arguer is assuming that capital punishment serves as any sort of deterrent in the first place. This may be true, but it is at least as questionable as the idea that it is even moral. Because the assumption is unstated and debatable, this argument also begs the question.Example #14 might normally be considered an example of a Genetic Fallacy - an ad hominem fallacy which involves the rejection of an idea or argument because of the nature of the person presenting it. And indeed, this is an example of that fallacy, but it is also more.It is essentially circular to assume the falsehood of the Republican political philosophy and thereby conclude that some essential element of that philosophy (like lowering taxes) is wrong. Maybe itiswrong, but what is being offered here is not an independent reason why taxes should not be lowered.The argument presented in example #15 is a little bit more like the way the fallacy normally appears in reality, because most people are smart enough to avoid stating their premises and conclusions in exactly the same manner. In this case, "unrestricted commercial relations" is simply a long way of stating "free trade" and the rest of what follows that phrase is an even longer way of saying "good for this country."This particular fallacy makes it clear why it is important to know how to take apart an argument and examine its constituent parts. By moving beyond the wordiness, it is possible to look at each piece individually and see that we just have the same ideas being presented more than once.The U.S. government's actions in theWar on Terrorismalso provide good examples of the Begging the Question fallacy. Here is a quote (adapted from the forum) made in reference to the incarceration of Abdullah al Muhajir, accused of plotting to construct and detonate a 'dirty bomb':16. What I do know is that if a dirty bomb goes off on Wall Street and the winds are blowing this way, then I and much of this part of Brooklyn are possibly toast. Is that worth possible violations of the rights of some psycho-violent street thug? To me it is.Al Muhajir was declared an "enemy combatant," which meant that the government could remove him from civil judicial oversight and no longer had to prove in an impartial court that he was a threat. Of course, incarcerating a person is only a valid means of protecting citizens if that person is, in fact, a threat to people's safety. Thus, the above statement commits the fallacy of Begging the Question because it assumes that al Muhajirisa threat, exactly the question which is at issue and exactly the question which the government took steps to ensure was not answered.

Sometimes you will see the phrase "begging the question" being used in a very different sense, indicating some issue which has been raised or brought to everyone's attention. This isn't a description of a fallacy at all and while it's not an entirely illegitimate use of the label, it can be confusing.For example, consider the following:17. This begs the question: Is it really necessary for people to be talking while on the road?

18. Change of plans or a lie? Stadium begs the question.19. This situation begs the question: are we all in fact guided by the same universal principles and values?The second is a news headline, the first and third are sentences from news stories. In each case, the phrase "begs the question" is used to say "an important question is now just begging to be answered." This should probably be considered an inappropriate use of the phrase, but it is so common by this point that it cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it would probably be a good idea to avoid using it this way yourself and instead say "raises the question."Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the fallacy of assuming as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion.A. The least convincing kind ofpetitio principiiis the repetition of the same words in the same order in both premiss and conclusion.. Generally, such an argument would not be misleading and would only be given in unusual circumstances,e.g., the speaker is very tired, talking to a child, or talking to a subordinate. Two examples follow.

1. "Dear Friend, a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree." Oscar Wilde,De Profundis.

2. --"What a brain! And you know how to prove things, like the big shots?--Yeah, I have a special method for that. Ask me to prove something for you, something real hard.--All right, prove to me that giraffes go up in elevators.--Let's see. Giraffes go up in elevators ... because they go up in elevators.--Good, that was great! ... Suppose I asked you to prove giraffes don't go up in elevators.--That's easy. I just prove the same thing, but the other way around." Fernando Arrabal,El Cementerio de Automoviles, el Arquitecto y ElB. A more common kind ofpetitio principiiis the transformation of the conclusion into a premiss using logical or grammatical principles. For example ...

1. "You know that God is a just and loving God because God is God and cannot be unjust or unloving."2. "Women write the best novels because men do not write novels as well."3. "There are many juvenile delinquents because many juveniles break the law, and the reason so many juveniles break the law is that they are juvenile delinquents."

C. A third kind ofpetitio prinicpiiis the use of an intermediate step in shifting to the same meaning from the premiss to the conclusion. A linking of premisses and conclusions return to the beginning. For example ...

1. "The soul is simple because it is immortal, and it must be immortal because it's simple."

2. "I once overheard three brothers dividing two candy bars. The oldest one gave each of the two younger ones half of a candy bar, and kept a whole bar for himelf. When asked why he got more candy, he said he was the smartest. A few minutes later, one of the younger ones asked why he was the smartest, and in reply the oldest said \'Because I have more candy.'" Ernest J. Chave,Personality Development in Children(Univ. of Chicago, 1937), 151.

D. The most difficult kind ofpetitio principiito identify is the kind where the premiss and the conclusion have the same "propositional content."I.e.,the statements are suitable paraphrases of each other, and each depends upon the other for its truth.

1. "The elemental composition of Jupiter is known to be similar to the sun... The core would be composed mainly of iron and silicates, the materials that make up most of the earth's bulk. Such a core is expected for cosmogonic reasons: If Jupiter's composition is similar to the sun's, the the planet should contain a small portion of those elements." J. Wolfe, "Jupiter,"Scientific American(Vol. 230 No. 1), 119.

2. The following example is a description of apetitio principiicommitted by Engel:

"A law has been named after Engel in light of this work. Engel's law states that 'the poorer the individual, the family or a people, the greater must be the percentage of the income needed for the maintenance of physical sustenance, and of this a greater proportion must be allowed for food.' It is odd to find this as a law, since Engel had used the proportion of outgoings on food as the measure of material standard of living." Ian Hacking,The Taming of Chance,(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), 140.

3. A contradiction to my theory of dream produced by another of my women patients (the cleverest of all my dreamers) was resolved more simply, but upon the same pattern: namely that the nonfulfillment of one wish meant the fulfillment of another. One day I had been explaining to her that dreams are fulfillments of wishes. Next day she brought me a dream in which she was traveling down with her mother-in-law to the place in the country where they were to spend their holidays together. Now I knew that she had violently rebelled against the idea of spending the summer near her mother-in-law and that a few days earlier she had successfully avoided the propinquity she dreaded by engaging rooms in a far distant resort. And now her dream had undone the solution she had wished for; was not this the sharpest contradiction of my theory that in dreams wishes are fulfilled? No doubt; and it was only necessary to follow the dreams logical consequence in order to arrive at its interpretation. The dream showed that I was wrong.Thus it was her wish that I might be wrong, and her dream showed that wish fulfilled(italics original)" Sigmund Freud,The Interpretations of Dreams(New York: Avon, 1966), 185.

II. The informal structure of thepetitio principiiis usually similar to one of the following.

Statementpis true.Statementnot-pis not true.orStatementpis true.Statementqis true.Statementris true.Statementpis true.

III. The reasonpetitio principiiis considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premiss must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.