3 2 5B e g g i n g t h e Q u e s t i o nwithout torture, so they can’t,” we could avoid circularity by adding a few
words to get this new argument:
If terrorists can be stopped without torture, then I’m a monkey’s uncle.
I’m not a monkey’s uncle.
∴ Terrorists can’t be stopped without torture.
This argument is not circular, because neither premise repeats the conclu-
sion. It is also valid, and it might even be sound. Still, it is no good as an
argument for the same reason as “Terrorists can’t be stopped without tor-
ture, so it can’t.” The problem lies in its first premise. The first premise is a
conditional, and its consequent (“I’m a monkey’s uncle”) is obviously false,
so that first premise as a whole is false unless its antecedent (“Terrorists can
be stopped without torture”) is also false. However, that means that the con-
clusion must be true in order for the first premise to be true. Thus, one could
not have any reason to believe the first premise if one did not already have
the very same reason to believe the conclusion. In short, one cannot have
any independent reason for the premise.
More generally, we can say that an argument begs the question in a context
if and only if (1) it depends on a premise that is not supported by any reason
that is independent of the conclusion, and (2) there is a need for such an in-
dependent reason.
To say that an argument begs the question in this sense is not just to say
that it raises the question. That is what a sports announcer means, for exam-
ple, when she says, “His injury begs the question of whether he will return
in time for the playoffs.” This common use of the phrase “begs the ques-
tion” is separate from the fallacy, but they are not completely unrelated. An
argument can also be seen as begging the question when its context raises
the question of why anyone who denies its conclusion should accept its
premises and when that question has no adequate answer.
More precisely, the need for an independent justification arises from the
context and the purpose for which the argument is being used. A premise
needs support from an independent reason, for example, when it is in dis-
pute or subject to objection and the arguer’s goal is to give an audience some
reason to accept the premise and, on that basis, to accept the conclusion.
That such a need for an independent reason exists but is not satisfied ex-
plains why the argument can be criticized by saying that it commits the fal-
lacy of begging the question.
This fallacy is often very hard to detect, both because it is affected by the con-
text and because there are many ways to hide the fact that a premise depends
on the conclusion. Consequently, people often use arguments that beg the ques-
tion when they have nothing better to say, especially on a controversial issue. It
is common, for example, to hear an argument something like the following:
It’s always wrong to murder human beings.
Capital punishment involves murdering human beings.
∴ Capital punishment is wrong.97364_ch16_ptg01_323-332.indd 325 15/11/13 11:07 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.