Circular logic?

Reader question:

Please explain “circular logic” in this sentence: Disarmament debates are often trapped by circular logic: arm because others arm.

My comments:

First of all, disarmament refers to reduction in military forces and weapons.

Especially heavy weaponry, like tanks and missiles, not to say nuclear weapons.

But disarmament is difficult to bring about because countries arm – and they arm because “arm because others arm”.

In other words, one country produces tanks and missiles because other countries produce tanks and missiles. Why do other countries produce missiles and tanks? Because every other country around them is producing tanks and missiles. Why don’t they stop making tanks and missiles? Well, because other countries are not stopping making tanks and missiles.

It goes round and round in a circle, a loop.

Hence the phrase, circular logic, a form of erroneous form of reasoning or argument.

The error lies in using the conclusion as the premise or assertion – the point you want to make.

In our example, the fact that others are making tanks and missiles becomes the reason for your own making tanks and missiles.

Let me give another example. Devout Christians say you have to believe the Bible because it’s the truth.

This begs the question: Says who?

Says God.

According to who?

According to the Bible.

See?

Here’s another example. Employment advertisements sometimes look for young recruits, preferring those with work experience. The younger the better, apparently, the more work experience the better.

The question is, if the recruit is very young, how can they be very rich in work experience?

See?

All right, here are media examples or circular logic or circular reasoning:

1. There has been a lot of criticism of the content of John Eastman’s op-ed that Newsweek recently published. But if there’s a lesson to be learned in this debacle for editors, it’s about how to edit opinion journalism.

Eastman begged the question, and Newsweek missed it completely.

Wikipedia offers this description of “begging the question.”

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning – an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy’s presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.

Eastman’s conclusion requires that the assumption that Kamala Harris’ “eligibility is questionable” be true. For that, he requires that her birth status must violate the legal standard for natural-born citizenship. The premises he has for this argument were a mere set of factual-sounding questions about the status of her parents in the 1960s, who he claims were very likely not naturalized by then.

This is a classic case of begging the question, or an argument requiring the conclusion to be true. But the legal standard is already decided, both in the courts and in decades of legally grounded practice in the U.S. government, as many have pointed in their rebuttals. Hence the candidate’s eligibility was already settled. Therefore, the questions Eastman asked were invalid, as premises, in the first place.

By failing to detect the circular reasoning, Newsweek dropped the ball.

- How Newsweek Missed the Circular Reasoning in ‘Kamala Harris Eligibility’ Op-ed, SCU.edu, August 26, 2020.

2. It has become apparent that critical race theory (CRT) supporters are now engaging in illogical arguments to convey the doctrine as something other than what it is. As if to purport it as separate from critical theory and Marxism. This would be like saying America has never been influenced by English culture, and it just so happens that we share language, history, mannerisms, and political beliefs.

One of the chief leaders in the argument for CRT is Professor Ibram X. Kendi. Recently, The News & Observer reported on his interview with CMS Foundation director Sonja Gantt. During the interview, Kendi made some extraordinary claims about the nature of CRT, which will be the subject of this article.

Unfortunately, Kendi is not the only individual making outlandish claims about CRT. Dr. Rashawn Ray, a David M. Rubenstein fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution, employed some bizarre reasoning in his attempt to prop up CRT. His claims will also be examined. In doing so, I aim to demonstrate that the supporters of CRT cannot rationally defend its doctrine and it should therefore be rejected as a valid response to group inequities.

Kendi claims to believe human beings are “deeply complex” but then seeks to define individual outcomes as a consequence of racism. For example, he states, “[i]f you believe we shouldn’t teach students about the existence of structural racism, then what should we teach them about why racial inequity exists?” Here, he is implying that racism is the only reason for racial disparities to exist. However, disparity does not mean discrimination. Moreover, if we take the definition of ‘equity’ as a general expression of fair treatment and opportunity, then Kendi’s interest in racial inequities becomes an examination into the perception and actuality of equity and not just the occurrence. This is because fairness and opportunity could mean different things for different parts of society. For example, if I pursue an engineering degree, I am likely to be denied employment opportunities at a law firm. But the engineer would not conclude, in this case, that he was mistreated or denied an opportunity. Likewise, a criminal may perceive justice differently than their victims.

However, Kendi may reply to this by saying racism and racist are not the same. Interestingly enough, Ray expresses the same belief when he argues, “racism can exist without racists.” But this is illogical. A racist is one that practices racism. By definition, the two are inseparable.

When asked about the doctrine of CRT that teaches children that they are inherently oppressors or oppressed, Kendi brushes off the consequences of his belief by stating, “[t]hat’s not what we’re trying to teach.” But that is the consequence of teaching CRT. His claim is akin to saying “I didn’t mean to run other cars off the road” while intentionally driving on the wrong side of the road. Similarly, Ray makes an illogical separation between the belief in CRT and its consequences. He purported, “[u]ltimately, we cannot employ colorblind ideology in a society that is far from colorblind.” Following this logic one should not employ an ideology against stealing because society is far from ending theft.

Outside of their absurd responses to the consequences of adverting CRT, Ray and Kendi demonstrate their limits in forming a moral and logical argument to justify CRT as a valid assumption. Ray makes conflicting claims due to his lack of understanding about what moral responsibility entails, and Kendi’s responses tend to result in circular reasoning.

“Scholars and activists who discuss CRT are not arguing that white people living now are to blame for what people did in the past,” Ray writes. “They are saying that white people living now have a moral responsibility to do something about how racism still impacts all of our lives today.”

An essential attribute of moral responsibility is blameworthiness. If people today are not to blame for historical events in the past, then they do not have a moral responsibility to do anything insofar as one has isolated their concern to said historical event. Moral responsibility falls under the branch of philosophy concerned with ethical behavior. And if one is concerned about moral responsibility, they must also concern themselves with whether a person is worthy of blame. (Unless they are a determinist, but I will save that conversation for another day.) Hence, Ray claiming that a group is not blameworthy for a particular action and then claiming they are morally responsible to act on the same particular action is a contradiction under moral philosophy.

- Irrational arguments plague critical race theory, by Joshua Peters, CarolinaJournal.com, July 9, 2021.

3. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday was widely mocked for what social media users suggested was a “circular logic” response to a question about tariffs.

As the talk on NBC News’ “Meet The Press” turned to President Donald Trump’s push to impose new tariffs on European nations that have sent troops to Greenland, amid Trump’s repeated threats to seize the island, moderator Kristen Welker noted that Trump has justified tariffs in the past by declaring national emergencies. And she asked Bessent: “What is the national emergency that justifies this new slate of tariffs?”

“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” Bessent replied, stumbling through his answer.

He went on to describe the tariffs as a “strategic” and “geopolitical” decision, arguing that Trump is using America’s economic power to prevent future crises.

- Treasury Secretary’s Trump-Defending Logic Gets Turned Into A Punchline: It went around in circles HuffPost.com, January 19, 2026.

本文仅代表作者本人观点，与本网立场无关。欢迎大家讨论学术问题，尊重他人，禁止人身攻击和发布一切违反国家现行法律法规的内容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

（作者：张欣）