Begging the question, if I’ve got it right, means assuming the conclusion in your argument.
For example: “We should abolish the death penalty, because two wrongs don’t make a right.” This assumes that killing is always wrong, which needs to be proved.
This can easily be put in syllogistic form.
All killing is wrong.
The death penalty is killing.
Therefore the death penalty is wrong.
The question-begging is even more apparent here. The syllogism is valid but we must first prove the major premise before we accept it as true.
But isn’t this true of every syllogism? Take the classic example:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Again, it’s a valid syllogism. But again it begs the question. It assumes the mortality of men to prove Socrates mortality.
Obviously the statements “All killing is wrong” and “All men are mortal” differ wildly in controversiality (if that’s a word), but in both cases the conclusion is drawing on assumptions contained in the premises.
So do all syllogisms beg the question? Or is question begging only a fallacy if the matter at hand is controversial?
A syllogism doesn’t beg the question because it states its premises. The classic syllogism:
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore Socrates is mortal.
states its premises. You only have to agree with the conclusion if you agree with both of the premises. On the other hand, your example:
> We should abolish the death penalty, because two wrongs don’t make a right.
doesn’t state all its premises. When you put it into syllogistic form:
> All killing is wrong.
> The death penalty is killing.
> Therefore the death penalty is wrong.
you can see its two premises and decide whether you agree with them. Actually, I’m not sure that your analysis of that sentence is correct. It seems to me that the complete breakdown of your example is
> Killing by a private person is wrong.
> The death penalty is killing by the state.
> The state doing something that would be wrong for a private person to punish another wrong act is still wrong.
> Therefore the death penalty is wrong.
is a more complete statement of the premises. Now you can tell what the three premises are and whether you agree with them.
The problem in using the rule “Don’t beg the question” is that arguments hardly ever state all their premises. Even if you break down someone else’s arguments into syllogisms and tell them, “You didn’t state all your premises,” you run the risk that they will just say, “Well, of course I didn’t state all my premises. I assumed that you weren’t stupid and that I didn’t have to state obvious things. Why are you getting picky with me and questioning things that everybody obviously believes?”
“An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion; anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion will also reject at least one of its premises (that which is the same as its conclusion), and so will reject the argument as a whole.”
It gives the example:
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.
Just because one passes from the general assumption (all men are mortal) to the particular case (Socrates is mortal) doesn’t mean one begs the question. In fact, when you assert that it’s just as wrong to assume one statement as it is to assume the other, you’re falling into the fallacy which gave rise to this mode of deductive inference in the first place.
The problem with syllogisms is that they are incorrectly applied, leading to a conclusion not dictated by the syllogisms. You have to watch the distribution of terms. For example:
All men are mortal.
A cat is mortal.
Therefore, all cats are men.
This is obviously fallacious, but people use similar false syllogisms every day, and they are not as obvious as that.
Wendell Wagner, I guess what you are saying is that begging the question occurs if the assumptions are implied rather than stated. To avoid question begging, one should state all–or at least most–of the premises.
aldiboronti, you–and your cite-- seem to take a narrower view than Wendell. In your example the premises are explicitly stated but they also explicitly contain the conclusion. Also the example doesn’t seem to be a valid syllogism at all.
Mathochist, I’d be interested if you could expand on your post. I think I see what you mean but I’m not sure. What is the fallacy you mean? Thanks.