It's not uncommon to find political arguments that commit the "Begging the Question" fallacy. This may be because so many people are simply unfamiliar with basic logical fallacies, but an even more common reason may be that a person's commitment to the truth of their political ideology may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove.
Here are some examples of this fallacy in political discussions:
11. Murder is morally wrong. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. (from Hurley, p. 143)
12. In arguing that abortion is not really a private moral matter, Fr. Frank A. Pavone, National Director Priests for Life, has written that "Abortion is our problem, and the problem of every human being. We are one human family. Nobody can be neutral on abortion. It involves the destruction of an entire group of human beings!"
13. Executions are moral because we must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime.
14. You would think that taxes should be lowered because you are a Republican [and therefore your argument about taxes should be rejected].
15. Free trade will be good for this country. The reason is patently clear. Isn't it obvious that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow on all sections of this nation the benefits which result when there is an unimpeded flow of goods between countries? (Quoted from With Good Reason, by S. Morris Engel)
The argument in #11 presumes the truth of a premise that isn't stated: that abortion is murder. As this premise is far from obvious, is closely related to the point in question (is abortion immoral?), and the arguer doesn't bother mention it (much less support it), the argument begs the question.
Another abortion argument occurs in #12 and has a similar problem, but the example is provided here because the problem is a bit more subtle. The question being begged is whether or not another "human being" is being destroyed - but that is exactly the point being disputed in abortion debates. By assuming it, the argument being made is that it is not a private matter between a woman and her doctor, but a public matter appropriate for the execution of laws.
Example #13 has a similar problem, but with a different issue. Here, the arguer is assuming that capital punishment serves as any sort of deterrent in the first place. This may be true, but it is at least as questionable as the idea that it is even moral. Because the assumption is unstated and debatable, this argument also begs the question.
Example #14 might normally be considered an example of a Genetic Fallacy - an ad hominem fallacy which involves the rejection of an idea or argument because of the nature of the person presenting it. And indeed, this is an example of that fallacy, but it is also more.
It is essentially circular to assume the falsehood of the Republican political philosophy and thereby conclude that some essential element of that philosophy (like lowering taxes) is wrong. Maybe it is wrong, but what is being offered here is not an independent reason why taxes should not be lowered.
The argument presented in example #15 is a little bit more like the way the fallacy normally appears in reality, because most people are smart enough to avoid stating their premises and conclusions in exactly the same manner. In this case, "unrestricted commercial relations" is simply a long way of stating "free trade" and the rest of what follows that phrase is an even longer way of saying "good for this country."
This particular fallacy makes it clear why it is important to know how to take apart an argument and examine its constituent parts. By moving beyond the wordiness, it is possible to look at each piece individually and see that we just have the same ideas being presented more than once.
The U.S. government's actions in the War on Terrorism also provide good examples of the Begging the Question fallacy. Here is a quote (adapted from the forum) made in reference to the incarceration of Abdullah al Muhajir, accused of plotting to construct and detonate a 'dirty bomb':
16. What I do know is that if a dirty bomb goes off on Wall Street and the winds are blowing this way, then I and much of this part of Brooklyn are possibly toast. Is that worth possible violations of the rights of some psycho-violent street thug? To me it is.
Al Muhajir was declared an "enemy combatant," which meant that the government could remove him from civil judicial oversight and no longer had to prove in an impartial court that he was a threat. Of course, incarcerating a person is only a valid means of protecting citizens if that person is, in fact, a threat to people's safety. Thus, the above statement commits the fallacy of Begging the Question because it assumes that al Muhajir is a threat, exactly the question which is at issue and exactly the question which the government took steps to ensure was not answered.
« Begging the Question: Religious Arguments | Begging the Question: Non-Fallacy »
