The expression 'to beg the question' has become so widely misused today to mean ‘to raise or give rise to the question’ to have arguably acquired this new connotation as its meaning. In fact, however,the expression is a term of art that derives from the realm of logic where it has another one. There it denotes the fallacy, otherwise known as petitio principii , whereby an abortive attempt is made to establish the truth of some contested proposition by advancing an argument on behalf of its truth that, explicitly or tacitly, assumes the truth of the conclusion in one of its premises, thereby vitiating any probative force the argument might otherwise be supposed to have.
An example of such a fallacy would be seeking to demonstrate Tony Blair to be an honest man by citing his being British and the honesty of all British men. Since the latter universal proposition requires for its truth that Tony Blair be honest, if British, it cannot be legitimately employed in an argument seeking to establish Mr Blair's honesty without his honesty having first been independently established, something that would render otiose the argument in question seeking to establish he was.
Widely tipped front-runner for the Tory Party leadership, shadow education secretary, David Cameron, committed this same fallacy twice in the speech he is reported in today’s papers as due to deliver today at the Policy Exchange in which he calls for tax breaks to support families.
He begged the question twice in that part of his speech in which he argued that, because it is demonstrable (i)that children do better if their mother and father are both there to bring them up , and (ii) that married couples stay together longer than unmarried ones, therefore (iii) there is a strong case for marriage being supported by the tax system.
Assuming we want children born in this country to do in life as well as possible, and assuming also, as premise (i) of Mr Cameron’s argument asserts, that, on the whole, children do best in life when brought up by both their natural parents together, there would be a strong case for the tax system being made to support the institution of marriage, provided most children were conceived or at least born to married couples, and provided, conversely, most people who married went on to have children.
Neither proviso shows signs of holding true for much longer, however much some might wish they both would. Thus, Mr Cameron might be said to have begged the question when arguing in favour of marriage being fiscally supported by having assumed it to be within marriage that most parents begat their children, and by also assuming that most couples got married with the intention, or effect, of their having children together.
Neither assumption seems likely to hold true for much longer, as a greater and greater proportion of children continue to be conceived and born in Britian to parents outside of wedlock, and more and more homosexual and lesbian couples call for, and seem increasingly likely to gain, the same fiscal and other legal benefits as were in the past the exclusive preserve of heterosexual couples upon marriage.
Homosexual and lesbian partnerships tend to be childless, or else, where one of the partners has a child they both then raise, these children grow up in the absence of one of their parents.
In so far as, by going through the formalities of some analogous knot-tying ceremony, homosexual couples succeed in becoming eligble for whatever fiscal and other legal benefits were formerly the exclsuive preserve of heterosexual married couples, then heterosexual couples who choose to remain unmarried will have just cause to complain of being victimised, if denied the same benefits. This is especially so, if they should go on to have children and if the rationale cited for such benefits is to encourage parents to stay together foer the sake of their children.
Why, they will ask, should their life-style choices be any less fiscally favoured than those of childless homosexual couples?
The root cause of Mr Cameron’s double-begging of the question is his seeming unwillingness to assert explicitly that, whilst, as he so coyly put it, 'families come in all shapes and sizes', domiciliary units comprising other than at least both biological parents plus their joint off-spring are not the kibnd of family unit in which children are known best to thrive, other things being equal, and this is so irrespective of the marital status of the parents vis-a-vis one another.
If, as the statistical evidence shows, marriage between men and women helps promote the longevity of unions between them, and if, as seems equally well-established, children benefit, other things being equal, by growing up under the same roof as both their natural parents, then, if the welfare of the nation’s children is what should principally govern family policy, then the only form of marital union there is reason to think the state should favour fiscally is that between men and women.
This fact is unlikely to please the gay and lesbian constituency who increasingly believe that, by going through some equivalent ceremony in which they declare commitment to each other, those sharing their same-sex sexual proclivities should be as inherently entitled as heterosexuals to benefit from similar legal and fiscal benefits as may accrue to heterosexual couples upon marrying.
But there are profound differences between homosexual forms of union and those heterosexual couples enter into upon marriage. Unions of the former sort are inherently sterile, naturally speaking. Those between men and women are inherently procreative by nature, or, at least, tend naturally to be.
Family policy in this country is unlikely to make any sense until political parties face up to and are willing to assert a truth that must always be liable to be unwelcome to some -- namely, that the prime, if not the sole, reason that the state has for favouring heterosexual marriage fiscally and legally is that it is in the best interests of all members of society, at least in the case of liberal ones, that these societies should continue to reproduce themselves, and heterosexual marriage between the natural parents of children constitutes the best domestic environment in which children can grow up.
Only time will tell whether tax incentives are enough on their own to revitalise the popularity of heterosexual marriage in the absence of some wider form of social recognition by members of society of the personal merits to them of becoming parents, combined with recongition of the benefits to their children and to other children of their growing up with both their parents.
In practice, it was precisely tacit recognition of this pair of dicta that uundoubtedly led Mr Cameron to beg the question in the double way he did in his speech. It is only a pity he did not come out and make these claims explicitly, thereby allowing a decent debate on family policy to start.
Meanwhile, as was reported in Monday's Times , the government continues to undermine heterosexual marriage by seeking to open up fiscal and tax benefits to every other form of domiciliary and sexual partnership.
Comments (3)
I do not agree with the logic above.
Firstly, while the first example is clearly an example of circular logic, I cannot see the circularity in David Cameron's comments. Further, the number of same sex unions is relatively small and is probably largely of people who are unlikely to be involved in a long term heterosexual relationship regardless of fiscal incentives.
Like most research in the social sciences, the reason that marriage favours the children is not certain. The article assumes that the only reason for this is that the parent lives with its biological parents. While this may be the case, it is equally possible that what really matters is that children grow up in a stable family with adults that love and care for them and each other whether biological parents or not.
I agree that incentives should not be given which discriminate against people in stable relationships, particularly when they have children. However, I would expect that any likely fiscal incentive would be much smaller than the costs of moving, living alone, childcare etc. caused by splitting up established families. I believe that the answer is more ensuring that no-one can benefit financially from leaving established families (i.e. the estranged parent being tracked and forced to contribute after leaving).
I believe that the greater economic freedom of society today makes them less likely than previous generations to be manipulated by fiscal incentives. Freed from the grosser hardships of our forebears, people are less inclined to alter their lives at the behest of the state or even the ever weakening censure of society.
Posted by Iain | March 10, 2006 10:56 AM
Posted on March 10, 2006 10:56
It is arguable that children born to married parents tend to do better because the type of people who enter into and remain in marriage, regardless of tax benefits or penalties, are likely to be better parents. So encouraging the 'rest' to get or remain married by changing the tax or benefits system may, on average, remove the average 'parenting premium' on marriage.
I am unhappy with the concept of the state deciding on desired family arrangements and incentivising those and disincentivising others. However, at present, we have a system which positively discriminates against marriage and subsidises many arrangements of having children outside marriage. This means that married parents will have fewer children and those outside marriage will have more because they are effectively subsidised to have children in arrangements which would be economically unviable were they not subsidised.
So the 'liberal' thing to do is to let people make their own choices without specific incentives or disincentives from the state. Because marriage is naturally more economically viable, I am confident that this would lead more children being raised in married families and fewer outside marriage.
Posted by HJ | July 1, 2005 9:43 AM
Posted on July 1, 2005 09:43
Whilst I follow the logic, I come at this from a different angle. As Mrs. Thatcher said, most people act rationally most of the time. The increase in unmarried union is a perfectly rational response for couples who perceive no additional benefit in getting married. The fall in marriage provides strong evidence that the tax and benefits system drives behaviour.
Once that is accepted, it then becomes a matter of politics - a decision about what types of behavour it is proper for government to support. Then all options are open for debate.
Posted by Ricky | June 29, 2005 8:33 PM
Posted on June 29, 2005 20:33