Begging the Question

Begging the Question  is a type of circular reasoning where the argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, rather than supporting it. In other words, the conclusion is essentially restated in different words in the premise, making the argument circular and unproven. Instead of providing evidence to support the claim, the argument assumes the claim is already true.  This is a type of circular reasoning.

Example 1:

Argument: "The Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible."
This is Begging the Question because the argument assumes the truth of the Bible's authority as proof of itself. The premise (the Bible says it is the word of God) already assumes the conclusion (that the Bible is the word of God), without offering any outside evidence.

Example 2:

Argument: "I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth."
This argument is Begging the Question because it uses the claim of being trustworthy as the reason for being trustworthy. It doesn't provide any independent evidence or reasoning to support the claim of trustworthiness—it just restates it.

Example 3:

Argument: "The law must be obeyed because it’s illegal to break the law."
This is another Begging the Question fallacy because it asserts the law must be followed simply because it’s illegal to break it. The argument assumes the law’s legitimacy and does not provide any reasoning as to why the law itself should be obeyed.

Why it’s a fallacy:

Begging the Question is a fallacy because it doesn’t provide any actual support for the argument; it simply restates the conclusion in the premise. To avoid this fallacy, an argument needs to present valid evidence and reasoning that leads logically to the conclusion, instead of assuming the conclusion is already true.

More on Begging the Question