Definition · Plain-language
Begging the question
Begging the question is a fallacy in which an argument assumes, as one of its premises, the very conclusion it is supposed to prove.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Assuming what you set out to prove
An argument begs the question when accepting its premises requires already accepting its conclusion. "Murder is morally wrong because killing people is unethical" simply restates the conclusion in different words, giving no independent reason to believe it. The Latin name petitio principii means "assuming the starting point". The flaw is not that the conclusion is false but that the argument supplies no support beyond the conclusion itself, so it cannot persuade anyone who does not already agree.
Relation to circular reasoning
Begging the question is the classical name for circular reasoning, and the two are usually treated as the same fallacy: both involve the conclusion appearing, openly or in disguise, among the premises. Some logicians distinguish a tight version (a one-step restatement) from a wider circular chain that loops through several steps. In practice the labels overlap. What matters analytically is whether the support offered is genuinely independent of the conclusion or merely presupposes it.
The common misuse
In everyday speech, "begs the question" is frequently used to mean "raises the question" or "prompts one to ask" — for example, "the new policy begs the question of cost". This usage is now widespread but, in the precise logical and philosophical sense, incorrect: to beg the question is to assume the conclusion, not to invite a further question. In rigorous writing, especially on reasoning and standards, it is clearer to reserve the phrase for the fallacy and say "raises the question" when you mean prompting an enquiry.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: assuming the conclusion as a premise of the argument
- Latin: petitio principii ("assuming the starting point")
- Type: informal fallacy of presumption
- Relation: the classical name for circular reasoning
- Key flaw: premises give no support independent of the conclusion
- Common misuse: it does NOT mean "raises the question"
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: "Begging the question" means prompting an obvious follow-up question.
Actually: That popular usage is, in the logical sense, a misuse. To beg the question is to assume the conclusion within the premises. When you mean that something prompts an enquiry, the precise phrase is "raises the question".
Often heard: Begging the question and circular reasoning are different fallacies.
Actually: They name the same flaw: the conclusion is presupposed by the premises. "Begging the question" is simply the traditional Latin-derived term, while "circular reasoning" is the more descriptive modern label. Most logicians treat them as equivalent.
Often heard: An argument that begs the question must have a false conclusion.
Actually: The conclusion of a question-begging argument may well be true. The problem is that the argument offers no independent support for it — it assumes what it should prove — so it cannot establish the conclusion even if that conclusion is correct.
Going deeper
