Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning
Begging the question means a question that begs to be answered. The phrase comes from an Aristotelian phrase, “beg the question“, but means “assume the conclusion.” It means ignoring a question, assuming it has already been answered.
Begging the question fallacy is, therefore, a form of circular reasoning that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. Hence, the premises are unable to provide independent support for the conclusion.
Begging the question argument can be illustrated in the form of the following argument,
- Premise P1
- Premise P2
- Premise Pi → similar to conclusion C
- :
- Premise Pn
- Therefore, conclusion C
Therefore, we say that the Premises Pi “begs the question” because it assumes the truth which is in question. It is a circular form of reasoning since what is to be proven in the conclusion is already stated in the premises. The following are some common example of begging the question fallacy.
- Person A: “How do you know that the Bible is divinely inspired?”
- Person B: “Because it is written in the Bible (Tim. 3 Verses 16 to 17) that ‘all scripture is given by divine inspiration of God.“
Argument
- Parent: “It’s time to go to bed.”
- Child: “Why?”
- Parent: “Because this is your bedtime.”
Argument
- Person A: How can you say that celibacy is an unnatural and unhealthy practice?
- Person B: Because it is neither natural nor healthy to exclude sexual activity from one’s life.
The conclusion of an argument is built over the foundation of its premises. Hence, in any argument, the plausibility of the premises must be more than that of the conclusion. Thus, if the confidence in the premises is lesser or equal to the conclusion, it becomes a form of circular reasoning leading to the begging-the-question fallacy.
