Begging the Question: Circular Arguments Disguised as Proof
Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming, in one's premises, the very conclusion one is trying to prove. It is a form of circular reasoning where the argument goes in a circle: the conclusion is smuggled into the premises, so the argument appears to prove something while actually proving nothing.
The Structure of Circular Reasoning
In its simplest form, begging the question looks like this: 'God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because it is the word of God.' The truth of each claim depends on the other, creating a perfect circle. Neither claim is established independently.
More commonly, the circularity is disguised through different wording. 'Freedom of speech is important because people should be allowed to say what they want.' The conclusion ('freedom of speech is important') is simply restated in different words as the premise ('people should be allowed to say what they want'). No new information or evidence is provided.
Begging the question is not always obvious because the circular nature can be hidden in a long chain of reasoning or in unfamiliar terminology. The premise and conclusion may be separated by several steps, with each step appearing to advance the argument when in fact it circles back to the starting point.
Common Disguises
Definitional circularity occurs when the premise and conclusion express the same idea in different words: 'Abortion is wrong because it is the taking of innocent life.' If 'taking of innocent life' is simply what the speaker means by 'wrong,' this is circular. The argument only works if there is an independent reason to accept that the premise proves the conclusion.
Appealing to the conclusion is another form: 'Of course my client is innocent -- would an innocent man really commit this crime?' This assumes innocence (the conclusion) in the framing of the rhetorical question.
Self-referential authority creates circularity when a source is used to validate itself: 'This newspaper is reliable because it reported that it is reliable.' Any claim that relies on itself for validation is circular.
Detecting and Countering
To detect begging the question, ask: 'Would someone who does not already accept the conclusion be convinced by this premise?' If the premise requires accepting the conclusion first, the argument is circular.
Another test: strip away the different wording and ask whether the premise and conclusion say the same thing. 'Democracy is the best system because government by the people is the ideal form of governance.' If 'democracy' just means 'government by the people' and 'best' just means 'ideal,' this says nothing beyond 'democracy is democracy.'
Counter by pointing out the circularity: 'Your premise assumes the very thing you are trying to prove. Can you provide independent evidence for your claim?' The arguer needs to break the circle by introducing evidence or reasoning that does not depend on the conclusion.
- •Begging the question assumes the conclusion in the premises, creating circular reasoning.
- •Circularity is often disguised through different wording or long chains of reasoning.
- •Test for circularity: would someone who rejects the conclusion also reject the premise?
- •Common disguises include definitional circularity and self-referential authority.
- •Counter by demanding independent evidence that does not presuppose the conclusion.