Here are links to the first three articles in this series: Introduction, Ad Hominem, Strawman.
This is probably one of the most common fallacies you'll come across. To beg the question is essentially assuming what you're trying to prove. But if you're trying to prove something, then assuming it implicitly in a premise of your argument won't be convincing, even though the argument is a valid one.
Philosopher Matthew Flanagan describes this fallacy as follows: "'Begging the question' refers to the informal fallacy known as petitio principii, which literally means 'requesting first principles.' The 'question' in 'begging the question' refers to the matter at the heart of the debate, the issue being debated. To 'beg the question' is to attempt to have that question conceded by assuming it either implicitly or explicitly in the premises of the argument the arguer offers for its truth. In other words, the arguer assumes what he [is] trying to prove and uses that assumption to prove that assumption correct."
Begging the question differs from other fallacies in that a question-begging argument is valid, whereas most other fallacious arguments are invalid. An example of a question-begging argument would be:
P1: God wrote the Bible.
P2: The Bible says that God can't lie.
P3: Therefore, God exists.
It's true that if God wrote the Bible and that God can't lie, then everything in the Bible is true, including the fact that God exists. But the problem is that you must first accept the premise that God exists before this argument will be convincing to you. Of course, there are independent reasons to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but this argument won't get you there.
Circular reasoning is a specific type of question-begging argument. Not all question-begging arguments are guilty of circular reasoning, but many are. An example of a case of circular reasoning would be something like the following: Women are better at writing poetry because men don't write poetry as good as women do.
Now, not everyone will make it easy on you to identify fallacies. Usually, unless someone specifically studies logic, the person you are talking to won't put their argument in the form of a syllogism. If you learn to do that, though, recognizing errors in reasoning will become much easier.
It also bears mentioning that people often confuse begging the question with raising the question, but the two are not interchangeable. For example, someone might say, "the weatherman this morning said there is a sixty percent chance of rain, which begs the question: Should I take an umbrella, just in case?" What this person really means is that it raises the question. It doesn't beg the question, which is a logical fallacy.
Examples of this fallacy in the abortion issue:
Many arguments that pro-choice people make beg the question. What is at the heart of the abortion issue is whether or not the unborn are full human persons (that is, human beings that have a serious right to life). So arguments from situations beg the question because you have to assume that the unborn are not valuable human beings with a serious right to life in order for the argument to succeed. So the argument that women need abortion because they might not be able to afford a child begs the question because we wouldn't allow a mother to kill her two-year-old child to make it easier to afford raising her other children (or because we think that growing up poor will mean the child won't have a good life). So if the unborn are full human persons, we can't justify abortion for that reason, either.
Pro-life people can beg the question, too, especially religious ones. The argument that abortion is wrong because God has commanded us not to murder is a question-begging argument. You have to assume that God exists for this argument to have force. But of course, most pro-choice people we talk to will not be religious, so this argument won't be convincing to them.
This is a fallacy that many of us make often without even realizing it. But as we learn to think more clearly and to give reasons for our views, we will stop making so many assumptions and be able to give compelling reasons for why we hold to the position that we do.
"So the argument that women need abortion because they might not be able to afford a child begs the question because we wouldn't allow a mother to kill her two-year-old child to make it easier to afford raising her other children"
ReplyDeleteYou're right. If someone made that argument, they are begging the question. And yet in the comments of the last thread, you do just that: "For example, if she is coerced into it by a boyfriend, then her boyfriend and the abortionist bear the culpability, not her."
If a woman killed her two-year old child because she was coerced into by a boyfriend, there's no way she would be avoiding prison time. It's only when we assume the unborn isn't fully human that we can talk about not having prison for women who get abortions. No one would ever suggest that a woman who kills a born child should be spared being put away in a prison or mental institution.
As an aside, anyone who does even an hour of sidewalk protesting near an abortion clinic will have the myth of "woman-in-distress" completely blown away. You talk with the women getting abortions and you find out they know exactly what they're doing. Or if you want some hard statistics from Guttmacher, you'll see that the main reason women get abortions are socio-economic: Basically, having a kid would interfere with their lifestyle.
Except there are testimonies that prove your argument about the "myth" completely false. It may not be common, but calling it a myth is far overstating matters. Believe it or not, abortionists and abortion counselors have lied to women so that they really didn't know what they were doing. A small sampling of women doesn't give you a perfect idea about all women who go in for an abortion.
DeleteI'm not begging the question with my argument about women who are coerced. I'm talking about moral culpability here. At worst, a woman who goes in for an abortion would be an accomplice, not the murderer, herself, similar to a woman who hires a hitman to have her husband killed. But there are women who really don't know what they're doing, and there are women who are coerced into it by an abusive boyfriend or parent. Not all post-abortive women share equal culpability.
So, what about responding to question-begging by question-begging?
ReplyDeleteFor example, a pro-abort says:
you want to force your views on women
I respond by saying:
When a woman has an abortion, she, her husband and the abortionist are forcing their views on the unborn baby. And they're using lethal force to force their views. Since you oppose forcing views on others, you should join me in opposing abortion.
It seems to me the response isn't a fallacy because it's exposing the question-begging aspect of the pro-abort's statement.
Looking out for fallacies isn't about trying to win arguments. We should always strive to win the person above winning the argument (though of course, we need to make sure that we're using good arguments). If someone does beg the question by saying something like, "we need abortion because some women can't afford a child," then I'm not just going to say, "sorry, you're begging the question!" And I'm not going to respond with a fallacious argument because two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, it's much more effective to ask questions and help the person realize that their argument doesn't work. In this case, we can trot out the toddler. "I agree that raising a child can be difficult and costly. But suppose a woman has a toddler and decides she needs to kill the toddler so that she can afford to feed her older children. Should we allow her to do that?" Of course the answer will be no, so I'll go from there to show her that she's assuming the unborn are not valuable human beings, but if they are, then we can't justify abortion for that reason.
Delete"So the argument that women need abortion because they might not be able to afford a child begs the question because we wouldn't allow a mother to kill her two-year-old child to make it easier to afford raising her other children (or because we think that growing up poor will mean the child won't have a good life). So if the unborn are full human persons, we can't justify abortion for that reason, either."
ReplyDeleteSeeing that this argument is about money and not the life of the child, it would follow that it is better to kill everything on the planet that costs money. When they have switched the situation to money, then they have already completely missed it. I wonder how people can think like this.
It is only a matter of time before people start saying that they WILL allow a two-year-old to be murdered if it is a financial burden.