(Petitio Principii)
The arguer, in order to prove their conclusion, points to a premise that is essentially the same conclusion, merely rephrased in different words.
Definition:
The Begging the Question Fallacy, known in Latin as Petitio Principii, is a form of circular reasoning in which the truth of a proposition is “proven” by the proposition itself. In this fallacy, rather than providing an independent reason, the conclusion is concealed as a presupposition within the premise. Though it may seem logical at first glance, it is substantively empty and offers no new justification for accepting the conclusion. For example: “This plan is just because it upholds justice.”
Here, it should be noted that the “justness” in the conclusion is already presupposed in the premise, and no independent criterion (such as measurable indicators of justice) has been provided.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
This fallacy is often hidden within a single, seamless sentence rather than shown in a transparent structure:
1. “A is true because B is true.”
2. But in reality, B is identical to A.
In other words, the arguer asserts “X is true,” and the reason offered is merely “X is true” reworded.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
“Our government is the best form of rule because it has established the highest level of security.”
– Why do you think the highest level of security is a sign of being the best?
– Because only good governments can create high security!
Here, it should be noted that the claim of “being the best” rests on an assumption that already accepts this conclusion, without offering any independent criteria for evaluating “best” or “desirable security.”
2. In economics:
“We must trust the capitalist system because this system brings about economic growth.”
Here, it should be noted that “trust in the capitalist system” is presented as stemming from “economic growth”, itself a feature of the system, without any independent reason offered for that trust.
3. In everyday life:
“I never lie because I always tell the truth.”
Here, it should be noted that both parts of the sentence convey the same idea, and no independent reason for “truthfulness” is offered; the claim is simply restated.
4. In advertising:
“This product has the best quality because it is made by the best company.”
– Why do you think this company is the best?
– Because its product has the best quality!
Here, it should be noted that “the product being the best” and “the company being the best” form a closed loop. Within this loop, no independent criteria for quality or company evaluation are provided, and the premise and conclusion merely confirm each other instead of giving a real reason.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It halts questioning: it masquerades as a logical argument but actually prevents people from seeking genuine, independent reasons.
- It fosters sophistry and endless debate: lacking real reasons, it turns discussions into repetitive loops rather than genuine conclusions.
- It legitimises baseless claims: it lends an appearance of reasoning to beliefs that lack any logical foundation, making them seem credible.
How can we recognise and counter it?
If the “reason” given for a claim is essentially the claim itself restated, ask:
– “Is your reason for this claim not simply a repetition of the same claim expressed in different words?”
– “Are you not using the very thing you want to prove as the reason for it?”
– “Is there an independent and separate reason to prove this claim?”
A suitable response might be: “If you try to prove your claim by simply restating the claim itself, you are committing the Begging the Question fallacy. You should look for external reasons and evidence to support it.”
Conclusion:
The Begging the Question Fallacy is among the most common and subtle fallacies. Using misleading phrasing leads us to accept a conclusion without any supporting reasons. Recognising it helps us distinguish genuine arguments from empty claims.