Reaching a conclusion from a premise that already contains or presupposes the conclusion is a fallacy called begging the question. It represents a fallacious argument with a built-in assumption.
Example:
“Cigarettes are bad for you because they are not healthy”
Conclusion: “Cigarettes are bad for you”
Premise: “Cigarettes are not healthy”
Although the conclusion may be true, the reasoning behind it is fallacious. The premise does not support the conclusion; it is the same sentence, formulated differently. Anything that it is not healthy, is bad, that is common sense. In fact, “bad” is used as a synonym for “not healthy”.
Let us look at it this way:
Speaker A: “You shouldn’t smoke, it’s bad for you”
Speaker B: ”People keep telling me so, do you know why smoking is bad?”
Speaker A: ”Because they are not good for your health.”
Regardless of Speaker A’s intentions, the only thing he did for Speaker B is annoy him. When encountered with a question that forces him to support his statement, he circles back to the conclusion. Hence, the fallacy occurs. In order to reach that conclusion, Speaker A should demonstrate how cigarettes are bad for your health.
It is in this meaning that begging is used. The Latin name for this fallacy is petitio principii (appealing to the initial principal). It is a form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is its own premise. Aristotle explains this as “asking the initial point”.
To understand this fallacy, we have to go back to Aristotle. The scientific method (experiments) that we now use is due to Bacon’s and Newton’s works. However, how we translate the findings from experiments into everyday language is entirely due to Aristotle. He paved the way for what we now understand as science.
Aristotle saw logic as a tool (Organon). A tool that will help science build its knowledge on certain grounds, and check the truth of its findings. The premise should support the conclusion, and the conclusion should be a consequence following from the premise.
Example 1: “Dogs are cute because humans find them adorable”
Example 2: “Climbing Mount Everest is hard because climbers experience difficulties”
Example 3: “Beyoncѐ is famous because she has many fans”
Example 4: “Dinosaurs are extinct because they don’t exist anymore”
The absurdity of begging the question fallacy is evident from the previous examples. In all of the examples, the conclusion is just a variation of the premise. Or, what is predicated to the subject in the conclusion is just a synonym of what is predicated in the premise.
So, in begging the question fallacy, two different words are used that share the same definition. One in the premise and one in the conclusion. In Example 1, “cute” and “adorable”. In Example 2, “hard” and “difficulties”. In Example 3, “famous” and “fans”. In Example 4, “extinct” and “exist”.
The conclusion “Dogs are cute” circles back to “humans find them adorable” as a premise. “Dinosaurs are extinct” circles back to “don’t exist anymore” as a premise. Perhaps it is clearer now why the fallacy is called begging the question or petitio principii. The speaker appeals to the initial point of the argument for support.
Characteristics of begging the question fallacy:
The problem of this fallacy can be expressed with two important elements.
Circular reasoning
In begging the question fallacy, the speaker uses his conclusion as proof for the same conclusion. Or, as Aristotle puts it: “… proves what is not self-evident by means of itself”. This kind of circular reasoning could go on forever if the fallacy is not pointed out.
Conclusion as a variation of the premise
This is explained in Example 1,2,3,4. Nonetheless, this characteristic of the fallacy is worth mentioning again. When the predicate of the subject in the conclusion is a synonym of the predicate in the premise, the same premise does not support the conclusion in no way.
Aristotle formulates this characteristic as “… either the predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or the same predicates belong to subjects which are identical”.
The dangers of begging the question fallacy?
As you can see, none of the examples represent statements which are false. But why do they represent a fallacy? “Circular reasoning” and “variation of the premise” are just characteristics of the fallacy; they tell us how the matter at hand is a fallacy, not the actual problem. In order to explain this, we have to call upon the almighty philosopher again, Aristotle.
Before Aristotle, knowledge was not really structured. Philosophy was blooming, science however not so much. Aristotle noticed that science needs a tool (method) if its goal is to gain certain knowledge. Any kind of knowledge is subject to the rules of logic. This fallacy does not have problems with the rules of logic, seeing as how it is a part of informal logic.
If this tool is to be of any use, it must be applied on statements that clarify something. It makes no sense to apply the rules of logic on something if we already know it to be true or false. This is exactly the problem with begging the question.
When begging the question fallacy occurs, the argument raises a moot point. Nothing new is said, nothing is clarified. When the question “why” is raised, the speaker asks for clarification or a demonstration. Responding with a variation of the conclusion cannot be considered as an explanation. Therefore, the argument has nothing of value for us it is only a truism.
Another philosopher who shared some thoughts on going back to the initial point is Immanuel Kant. Opposing the ability to obtain knowledge about God, he thought that we could not give attributes to God. For example, saying “God exists” is going back to the initial point. Existence is the essence of God. When we say “God”, we mean “existence”. So, the most used attribute for god(existence) is just a truism or begging the question.
Misuse of begging the question
Example 5:
Speaker A: Wow, that lady just stole money from that homeless guy.
Speaker B: Yeah, it really begs the question, how far will people go for money?
Example 6: “Glaciers keep melting. It begs the question, is climate change real?
The original meaning of begging the question is lost due to misuse of the phrase in daily life. In fact, you have probably seen a reporter misuse this phrase. Nowadays, when begging the question is used, we mean, “that prompts the question” or “that leads to the question”. Used in this sense, begging the question has nothing to do with a fallacious argument.
Most logicians are opposed to the use of the phrase in this sense. Begging the question has its roots in the Latin petitio principii. It is meant to represent a form of circular reasoning, an argument with a fallacy of appealing to the initial point. Nothing in Example 5 and 6 suggests circular reasoning or a fallacy.
However, as time passes and civilization moves forward, words and phrases are constantly changing meaning. If enough people start using a phrase not in its adequate sense, the phrase will obtain a new meaning.