What would be (the closest) logical fallacy when one demands that their proposition be accepted axiomatically and exempts oneself from providing a reasonable argument or empirical evidence?

E.g. "The simple issue is actually more complicated (so that I can attach my unrelated strings to it), but that's the subject of another conversation."

  • In this generality this is not a fallacy, one is free to postulate whatever premises they want, the issue of logic is whether they are consistent, compatible with the facts, and whether the conclusions follow. Of course, the opponent is equally free to reject the premises. When it does rely on a fallacy shifting the burden of proof or appeal to authority may be involved.
    – Conifold
    Sep 7, 2017 at 17:50
  • "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". In philosophy, as in mathematics, you need some axioms from which to derive logical conclusions. If you disagree with someone's axioms, you have a fundamental difference of opinion that can not be logically resolved. One way to argue against such a thing is to show their axioms, combined with logic, lead to conclusions with which they disagree.
    – user935
    Sep 9, 2017 at 1:08

1 Answer 1


This is a form of begging the question. We beg the question when we either assume the answer itself as one of our premises, or assume a controversial premise that entails our conclusion. Ideally, to be persuasive, an argument should work from mutually agreeable premises. If we insist on working from a premise that is not mutually agreeable and is too close to our conclusion, then we beg the question.

Suppose you and I disagree about whether lager is delicious. I insist on arguing from the premise that beer in general is delicious, which is disagreeable to you. I am begging the question.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .