Begging the question

From RationalWiki

Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument. I.E., the premises would not work if the conclusion is invalid. ^[1]

It is related to circular reasoning, with the distinction that circular reasoning is: "A implies B which implies A", whereas "begging the question" is that "A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed".

Example 1:

• We shall prove that God exists.

1. The order and magnificence of the of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
2. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the structural differences in the argument to circular reasoning - the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but using it as evidence of God's existence assumes he exists.

Example 2:

• We shall justify making abortion illegal.

1. Abortion is unjust murder.
2. Murder is illegal.
3. Therefore abortion should be made illegal, since it is murder.

In this case, the conclusion (that abortion should be illegal because it is murder) is assumed to be true in order to compare it to murder in the first point. Essentially, the initial premise comparing abortion to murder remains unproved without any additional evidence.

[edit] Confusion with term

Many people incorrectly use the expression to mean "raises the question", in the sense that they believe an important point is being overlooked in the argument given. For example; "If God created the universe, this 'begs the question' of who created God." In this case, "raises the question" is the correct term to use.

[edit] Footnotes

1. ↑ http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html