Begging the Question fallacy (Petitio Principii) includes premise(s) that are worded differently, similar or equal to what is stated in the conclusion. In other words, the claim of the conclusion is a simple and sometimes cleverly disguised version of the premise or a restatement of the premise in the conclusion. This is also known as circular reasoning.
Example:
Capital Punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping because it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
Conclusion: Capital punishment is justified for the crimes of murder and kidnapping.
Premise: it is quite legitimate and appropriate that someone be put to death for having committed such hateful and inhuman acts.
In other words, without adding any reasonable arguments for why this is so, the arguer is saying that putting someone to death is legitimate and appropriate because it is justified for hateful and inhuman acts. That something like murder is hateful and inhuman is true, but it may not be for all circumstances or all cases that the death penalty should be sought. And kidnapping is also hateful and inhuman but does it warranty the death penalty? Further explanation or more involved reasoning should always help an argument’s case.
Socratic dialogue is the attempt at a more exhaustive debate in order to get at truth claims. Socrates would not let his students off the hook too easily, questioning them to exhaustion.
Some more premises like below may help move the argument out of begging the question and even perhaps question the conclusion:
Hateful acts are those where and innocent person is harmed or murdered
Death penalty can take the person who committed the evil act out of society so that person never hurts anyone again.
Death penalty can save costs of prison incarceration for those who have been judged for a capital crime.
It is Debatable if kidnapping is a capital offense, maybe in some cases?
Murder is the taking of someone else’s life
The Judgment “an eye for an eye” (Old Testament) can be a fair trade in such cases, but need not be for every case of murder.
Mercy can also be chosen as in Christ’s example on the cross (New Testament).
There is always hope for forgiveness, reconciliation, and repentance of the person who committed the evil act.
2. Audi makes the best cars in the world. We know these because they have the best German engineers. The reason they have the best engineers is because they can afford to pay them more than other car manufacturers. Obviously, they can pay them more because they make the best cars in the world.
Premise: German engineers are the best engineers because they get paid more because Audi makes the best cars in the world.
Conclusion: Audi makes the best cars in the world.
Thus, Audi makes the best cars in the world because Audi makes the best cars in the world. This is a classic case of circular reasoning.
No proof or evidence is offered as to why the German engineers are the best. Getting paid more does not make you the best engineer. And people that get paid more do not necessarily make the best cars. The opposite case can be made that getting paid too much can make you lazy and a company lazy and less innovative. They could be spending their extra wealth on cake and champagne and not the latest and greatest innovations or parts.
Simply assuming the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.
More examples:
1.
Andy: “God must exist”
Phil: “How do you know?”
Andy: “Because the Bible says so.”
Phil: “Why should I believe the Bible?”
Andy: “Because the Bible was written by God.”
2.
“If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.”
3.
“The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.”
4.
Interviewer: “Your resume looks really amazing! But I need another reference”
Chechepay: “Jill can give me a good reference.”
Interviewer: “How can I trust Jill?”
Chechepay: “Shoot, man, I can certify her as a downright honest gal!”
5.
“Since I’m not lying, it follows that I am telling the truth.
6.
“We know that Satan exists, since the Bible says Satan exists.”
7.
“What the Bible says is true, since God wrote it and God never lies.”
8.
“Since firefighters must be strong men willing to face danger every day, it follows that no woman can be a firefighter.”
Thanks to:
Hebrew4Christians.com
No comments:
Post a Comment