ATEG Archives

October 1999

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"William J. McCleary" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:27:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
I see it as an example of begging the question because it avoids the issue
of defining murder. It assumes that capital punishment is murder, which of
course it is not. It is only called murder in order to prejudice the case
against capital punishment without addressing the real issues.

Bill McCleary



>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


William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859

ATOM RSS1 RSS2