Begging the Question: An Analysis of the Logical Fallacy
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that has been used in rhetoric for centuries. It is also known as petitio principii, which is Latin for “assuming the initial point.” In essence, a person commits a fallacy of begging the question when they assume the truth of their conclusion in the premises of their argument. This type of reasoning can lead to circular arguments, and can be avoided with careful consideration of the premises of any given argument.
The concept of begging the question can be traced back to the Aristotelian school of thought. Aristotle was a proponent of the syllogism, which is an argument that follows a specific form. A syllogism usually consists of two premises, each of which is assumed to be true, and a conclusion that follows from the premises. Aristotle identified the fallacy of petitio principii as an error that could occur when a person assumes the truth of the conclusion of a syllogism as one of the premises.
Begging the question can also be seen in modern rhetoric. This type of fallacy is often used in political debates, in which one party assumes the truth of their conclusion in the premises of their argument. For instance, in a debate about gun control, a person may argue that gun control is necessary because guns are dangerous. This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question, as it assumes the truth of the conclusion (that guns are dangerous) in the premise.
In addition to being used in political rhetoric, begging the question can also be seen in everyday conversations. People often assume the truth of their conclusions in their arguments without realizing it. For example, someone may argue that their favorite sports team is the best because they won the last game. This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question, as it assumes the truth of the conclusion (that the team is the best) in the premise.
Begging the question is a fallacy that can be avoided by carefully considering the premises of an argument. It is important to ensure that the conclusion of an argument is not assumed to be true in the premises. This will help to avoid circular arguments and ensure that arguments are logically valid.
References
Aristotle. (1976). On sophistical refutations. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 2, pp. 1762–1791). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Walton, D. N. (2008). Begging the question. In D. N. Walton (Ed.), Fundamentals of critical argumentation (pp. 75-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.