William Atkinson - The Complete Works of William Walker Atkinson

VIII. Arguing by “Begging the Question.” This form of false argument consists in the unwarranted assumption of the premise upon which the argument is based. For instance, the example: “ Good institutions should be united ; Church and State are good institutions; therefore Church and State should be united.” In this instance, the premise “Good institutions should be united” is boldly assumed without proof or agreement . Hyslop explains: “It is not merely the failure to prove one’s premises that constitutes the fallacy of Begging the Question. The failure must be one which occurs when proof is needed or demanded, and this is when the premise in turn is treated as a conclusion to another argument. Hence the begging of the question occurs only when the attempt to prove a proposition involves the assumption of it in a premise that the hearer or opponent does not admit. * * * It is most frequent in arguments with others, because the one condition of proof or conviction in such cases is that the opponent, reader, or friend admit the principle upon which the conclusion is to be established, while the subject himself may not require proof at all for his conviction, as he already accepts the proposition. But we cannot prove to another a truth with premises that he does not admit. He simply charges ‘begging the question’ because he is not obliged to admit in the conclusion what he does not admit in the premises.”

Arguing in a Circle is really one form of Begging the Question, although it differs in some respects from the more common forms of the latter. Begging the Question is a common practice of some debates, particularly in political discussions. Who has not known the orator, who solemnly and earnestly asserted: “It is a fact admitted by all, that,” etc.; or “It is a truth disputed by none, that,” etc.; or, “The wise of all ages and all lands, have held that,” etc.; or, “The common experience of the race has demonstrated, beyond the possibility of doubt, that,” etc.;—all of which is false argument, although the statement itself may be true—particularly aggravated instances of Begging the Question. There are also certain words and terms which have acquired a meaning, perhaps unwarranted, which prejudices one against anything to which they seem to be applicable, although there is no proof against the thing in question, nor even, in many cases, any proof that the quality indicated by the unpopular term is objectionable. Jevons calls these words and terms, “question-begging epithets,” and says: “We should always be on our guard against being misled by them. It is a good proverb which says, ‘Give a dog a bad name, and hang him.’”

IX. Argument by Arousing Prejudice . This form of false argument consists in an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the hearers, rather than to the intelligence and judgment. It is a favorite form of false argument in political addresses, and often in jury trials. It is the principal weapon of demagogues. Brooks says of it: “It does not prove anything, but may lead the judgment or actions of the people, and is therefore a fallacy. Such an argument is not improper when the conclusion arrived at is believed to be a correct one; but is illegitimate when the conclusion is wrong in itself, or when he who urges it does so hypocritically. Considered as an argument, it is always a fallacy, and should be used with great care and an upright conscience.” Marc Antony’s address over the body of Cæsar, as given by Shakespeare, is an excellent example of this form of false argument.”

X. Argument of Abuse . This form of false argument is based on abuse of the opposing speaker, or browbeating of an opponent. The ancients called it the “Argument of the Cudgel,” because of its resemblance to the most ancient form of argument—that of beating one’s opponent with a club, or a resort to fisticuffs, both being favorite forms of argument in some circles. The cave-man, and his modern prototype favors the plan of argument which consists of beating into submission those who differ with them in opinion. Jevons says: “An attorney for the defendant in a lawsuit is said to have handed to the barrister his brief marked, ‘No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney.’ Whoever uses an argument which rests, not upon the merit of the case, but the character or position of those engaged in it, commits this fallacy. If a man is accused of a crime it is no answer to say that the prosecutor is bad.” It is no argument to say in reply to a charge; that “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones;” or to answer, “you’re another!” It is a favorite method of some public speakers to answer a charge, or a proposition, by attacking the character of those advancing it. Some scientific writers have charged their clerical opponents with frequently resorting to this form of false argument, instead of meeting argument with argument. There is no excuse for this practice, by whomever employed.

XI. Argument by Complex Questions . This form of false argument consists of asking questions of the opponent, or witness, which are so worded as to entangle him in a paradox, or else to cause him to appear to make damaging statements by the application of the answer of one question to another. Often the question is so cleverly worded that an answer of either “Yes” or “No” places the answerer in a false position. For instance, the well known trick-question of the lawyer who asked the witness the question: “Have you stopped beating your mother?” to which an answer either in the affirmative or negative would have been an admission of a detestable offense. A similar question is: “Then you have turned honest?” or “You have learned to tell the truth at last, have you?” Many questions may be asked in a “double form,” so that an answer of either “Yes” or “No” will give a false impression, the only escape being to answer each part of the question separately. Brooks says of this form of false argument: “This is a low trick sometimes employed by lawyers in the examination of witnesses, with a view of puzzling them or turning their answers to a wrong account. Thus, ‘You were swayed by the love of money in the transaction?’ (meaning exclusively), to which the witness answers, “Yes” (meaning in part). Another question follows: ‘In being swayed by money you acted selfishly in the transaction?’ The utilitarian puts to us the questions: ‘You deny that virtue consists in utility!’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Then you deny that utility is a good thing.’” This form of “tripping up” one’s opponent is characteristic of those who prefer to win by “smartness” rather than by intellect. A certain form of argumentative questioning, designed to bring out points which may be attacked, is allowable and quite fair and proper—the line between the fair and unfair is very plainly marked, however.

XII. Argument against the Professions of the Opponent . This form of false argument consists in appealing from the point at issue, to the professions, principles, or previously expressed opinions of the opponent. For instance, a Freethinker or an Atheist may be defending an orthodox theological doctrine as strictly logical and consistent with correct reasoning from the accepted premises. It is no argument, or answer, against the truth of the proposition, to say “Why, you are an Atheist or Freethinker! You do not believe in the Scriptures upon which you are basing your argument!” In the same way, it is no answer or argument to assert that a defender of a Republican principle happens to be a Democrat. Nor is a drunkard stopped from logically asserting the principles of Temperance or Prohibition. The fallacy in this form of false argument lies in the fact that while the answer is valid as against the opponent , and may silence, or confuse him, and create an impression against his reasoning; it is not valid against the question at issue , or the views advocated by him—the logic of his argument is not affected in the least degree. It is not an argument ad rem , that is, directed toward the real issue, and therefore has no logical value in determining the matter. The proof of the fallacious nature of this form of argument or answer is that when the opponent changes his views, beliefs, or opinions , the argument falls to the ground, while the original points at issue are unchanged, showing that there is no logical connection between the two. Brooks says: “This fallacy is especially objectionable when we take advantage of premises which those with whom we argue allow, but which we ourselves do not believe. It is legitimate only when we wish to make our opponents doubt their premises by seeing the consequences to which they lead, or to silence an unreasoning and caviling adversary. * * * Christ often used this method to silence the cavils of the Jews, as in Matt. xxii:41–45.”