Having to accept certain premises isn’t exactly the issue with begging the question.
Begging the question is when a person accidentally or intentionally assumes their conclusion, i.e. the thing they’re trying to prove/argue for.
For example, if your friend is trying to prove the pythagorean theorem from math to you, and after a long list of geometric and algebraic work they sneak in a usage of the pythagorean theorem to reach the conclusion without either of you noticing, then your friend has begged the question. Their usage of the pythagorean theorem assumes the thing they wanted to prove in the first place was true.
To go further, you can have a conditional claim like “A implies B”, that doesn’t beg the question, but in your reasoning for showing why A really does imply B, you can still beg the question (which is what happens in my pythagorean example).
Certain arguments can have premises that do essentially beg the question too though. If I make a conditional claim like “A and B are true therefore B is true”, then my conditional claim assumes B is true in the first place. You can’t really tell anything about whether or not B is actually true from my claim because my claim assumes B is true from the start.
Just having to assume certain premises isn’t inherently logically fallacious. All true conditional claims depend on their premises to guarantee the truth of their conclusion. The issues that can arise with conditional claims are usually that their premises are false or that their premises don’t actually imply their conclusion.
Having to accept certain premises isn’t exactly the issue with begging the question.
Begging the question is when a person accidentally or intentionally assumes their conclusion, i.e. the thing they’re trying to prove/argue for.
For example, if your friend is trying to prove the pythagorean theorem from math to you, and after a long list of geometric and algebraic work they sneak in a usage of the pythagorean theorem to reach the conclusion without either of you noticing, then your friend has begged the question. Their usage of the pythagorean theorem assumes the thing they wanted to prove in the first place was true.
To go further, you can have a conditional claim like “A implies B”, that doesn’t beg the question, but in your reasoning for showing why A really does imply B, you can still beg the question (which is what happens in my pythagorean example).
Certain arguments can have premises that do essentially beg the question too though. If I make a conditional claim like “A and B are true therefore B is true”, then my conditional claim assumes B is true in the first place. You can’t really tell anything about whether or not B is actually true from my claim because my claim assumes B is true from the start.
Just having to assume certain premises isn’t inherently logically fallacious. All true conditional claims depend on their premises to guarantee the truth of their conclusion. The issues that can arise with conditional claims are usually that their premises are false or that their premises don’t actually imply their conclusion.