Okay, one last comment, and I'll keep me mouth shut!

Regarding R.S.'s last reposte:

>I suppose we could pursue the matter, couldn't we?  If value judgments are
>called for, I would certainly insist that capital punishment is murder
indeed
>and that no equivocation has taken place at all here.

Well the key idea here are your words, "I would certainly insist, "
sugesting that the matter is one of opinion and not fact. If the definition
of the term is one that has multiple interpretations - or can be argued -
then the possibility exists that there will be an opportunity for abuse.

What matters is not who is "right" (people will disagree forever), but who
is being honest and true in his/her argument. Begging the question, like all
falacious arguments, is a form of dishonesty - because it disguises (evades)
the definition of its terms (what is 'murder'?).

Consequently, your analogous syllogism:

>That's the same as the All
>humans are mortals; Socrates is a human; thus, Socrates is a mortal.

Alas, it is NOT the same. The analogy breaks down quickly: The terms "human"
and "mortal" are not open to interpretation as is the term "murder." There
is never any need for begging this question because there isn't any question
at all. The capital punishment = murder argument is open to disagreement;
the Socrates = human = mortal "argument" is not!

I have to agree with Bill:

>> I see it as an example of begging the question because it avoids the
issue
>> of defining murder.

Sorry,

Paul D.