5. Begging the Question

The rationale behind an argument, as we know, is to prove a point. The burden placed upon the one making the argument, then, is to provide concrete evidence on the basis of which the conclusion can be seen to be true. The fallacy we call “begging the question” is therefore a very basic kind of mistake, for it attempts to get around the whole argumentative process. A discourse that commits this fallacy might superficially appear to be an argument but in fact it is not.

The reason is that it lacks real premises—information that offers genuine support for the conclusion. The specific mark of the fallacy is this: The very point that has to be proved to be true is simply assumed to be true. Consider the following argument:

 

Because Shirley is given to prevarication,

Shirley is a liar.

 

We might too quickly suppose we have a genuine argument here with a real conclusion, because the first statement seems to serve as a premise for the second. But if we reflect on what that first statement says, we see that it is simply repeating, using different words, what the conclusion says. The two statements differ only verbally, not in terms of their content. So, the very point that needs to be proved is assumed to be true, without there being offered any substantiation for it. Let’s consider a more complicated form of the fallacy:

 

All the people at the table had their heads shaved.

Jim was at the table.

Therefore, Jim had his head shaved.

 

Again, superficially considered, the conclusion of this discourse might appear to be demonstrating something to be true, but that is not the case. If we reflect on the first statement, which has all the marks of a bona fide major premise, we see that the only way it could be made would be on the basis of a prior knowledge of the conclusion. I could not know that “all” the people at the table had their heads shaved if I didn’t already know that Jim had his head shaved. So the conclusion merely repeats information that we already know. No real inference is being made here.

A variation of the begging-the-question fallacy is “arguing in a circle,” sometimes called the “vicious circle.” The gist of the fallacy is this: First, one statement A is used as the supporting premise for another statement B; then, later, the process is reversed, and what was initially the premise A now becomes the conclusion, and the original conclusion B serves as the premise. Consider the following argument (I will label the statements so the reversal will stand out):

 

A) Because human beings are entirely determined

B) They lack free will.

 

Then, a few pages later, we read:

 

B) Given the fact that human beings lack free will

A) It follows that they are entirely determined in their actions.

 

If the two arguments were put right next to each other their circularity would be readily apparent. They are therefore separated by enough intervening prose that readers can be expected to have forgotten the first argument by the time they get to the second.