Hmmmm. Strange that they would classify this as an instance of begging
the question.  This seems to me to be a perfectly proper argument, which
one might attack better, perhaps, as an instance of equivocation on
"murdering," one meaning as "taking life" and another as "wrongfully
taking life (as defined by law)."  This would be question begging if I
were to reason: "Capital punishment is wrong because the state's killing
someone cannot possibly be thought of as right."  In this case, the
identical statement is being repeated.  Nothing has been backed with
evidence. I'm "begging" that the statement be accepted without evidence.

==Reinhold

"Aaron D. Profitt" wrote:

> It seems to me that "begging the question" comes from logic/argument,
> and means answer a question (ie, challenge) in a way that leaves the
> question unanswered, often because the supposed answer presupposes a
> certain answer to the given question.  To quote from my reason and
> argument text (_Understanding Arguments_ by Robert Fogelin and Walter
> Sinnott-Armstrong), "An argument is question begging if it relies,
> either explicity or implicitly, on things that, in the argumentative
> context, are matters of dispute" (p. 350).  Their example is:
> (Premise 1)  It's always wrong to murder human beings.
> (P2)  Capital punishment involves murdering human beings.
> -----------------------------------------
> (Conclusion)  Capital punishment is wrong.
>
> The problem, of course, is that P2 presupposes the validity of the
> conclusion.
>
> Aaron D. Profitt
> --
> Aaron D. Profitt
> The Gentle Misanthrope
> "The superfluous, a very necessary thing."  - Voltaire
> ~veritas omnia vincit~
> University of Kansas