Begging the question

Begging the question, in modern popular usage, is almost always synonymous with raising the question.

However the original meaning, still strongly defended by some, is quite different: it described a type of logical fallacy in which the evidence given for a proposition contains the proposition itself. This is also known as a circular argument, circulus in probando, petitio principii, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic, it was first identified by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C, in his book Prior Analytics.

Table of contents

1 Confusion in the term "begging the question"
2 Circular argument
3 Raising the question

Confusion in the term "begging the question"

Part of the reason for the misunderstanding over what "begging the question" means may be due to the confusing term itself, which was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii, would be translated more accurately as "Petitioning the Principle," or "Claiming the truth of the very matter in question," but the more pithy "Begging the question" has become the well-known translation.

The two meanings ("circular argument" and "raising the question") are discussed below.

Circular argument

A Circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example:

Paul is not lying.
Whoever is not lying, is telling the truth
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.

While at first glance these statements appear logical, they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. In seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth.

It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premise, since it is in some way identical to the premise. All circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.

Strictly speaking, a circular argument has the following structure. For some proposition p

p implies p
p
therefore, p

The syntactic presentation of circular reasoning is rarely this transparent, as is shown for example in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.

Another kind of reasoning which is not strictly speaking circular, is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion whose proof is not likely to be any easier.

All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

This reasoning is valid; moreover the first premise is strictly stronger than the conclusion. Indeed the first premise may be harder (or impossible) to prove, since it quantifies over many different kinds of intentional acts of killing human beings, such as acts of self-defense.

Note that reduction to a more general premise is often useful, particularly in mathematics: For instance, to prove that the sum of the first 244 integers is 29890, it is easier to first prove a more general assertion viz,

The sum of the first n integers equals 1/2 times n times (n+1).

See also: circular definition

Raising the question

As the phrase "Your statement begs the question..." is used today, a question-begging argument needn't go so far as to include its conclusion in its premises. Rather, the argument need only rest upon premises so contentious that no detractor of the conclusion would accept them anyway.

For example, the argument "Bob says all apples are red, and Bob is always right, therefore all apples are red," raises the question, "how do you know that Bob is always right?" Unless one knows Bob to be unerringly reliable one would be foolish to take this argument alone as proof for the redness of all apples. Though the argument is not circular, it is effectively so: in order for the argument to follow logically, it is necessary to show that Bob is always right.

Though, it's not always wrong to use raising the question in discussion with someone who does not question the argument, the question that is raised must be addressed with someone who wishes to interrogate the argument. If, however, it was assumed that it would never be questioned, and the arguer can't supply a good reason for the assertion, then the assertion becomes a fallacy.

In much modern usage, sometimes criticized, the phrase has nothing to do with arguments in logic at all and merely refers to raising an issue. For instance: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?"