Identify the fallacy committed in the following argument:

"Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible to inflict death as

punishment for crime"

The correct answer is Begging the Question (also known as Petitio Principii).

Let us carefully break down the argument given and understand exactly why it commits this fallacy.

The Argument Stated:
"Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible to inflict death as punishment for crime."

At first glance, this might appear to be a reasoned argument — it seems to offer a because clause as a justification. However, on closer inspection, the reasoning is entirely circular. Let us dissect it:

Step 1 — Identify the Conclusion:
The conclusion of the argument is: "Capital punishment is morally wrong."
This is the claim the arguer is trying to prove.

Step 2 — Identify the Premise (the reason given):
The premise offered is: "It is ethically impermissible to inflict death as punishment for crime."
This is supposed to be the evidence or reason that supports the conclusion.

Step 3 — Compare the Conclusion and the Premise:
Now ask yourself: what does "ethically impermissible to inflict death as punishment for crime" mean?
It means exactly the same thing as "capital punishment is morally wrong" — just rephrased in different words.

"Morally wrong" = "Ethically impermissible"
"Capital punishment" = "Inflicting death as punishment for crime"

So the argument is essentially saying:
"X is wrong, because X is wrong."
The premise does not provide any independent support for the conclusion — it simply restates the conclusion in a slightly different form.

Step 4 — What is "Begging the Question"?
Begging the question (Petitio Principii) is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed within one of its premises. In other words, the arguer uses the very claim they are trying to prove as part of the reasoning meant to prove it. No actual evidence or independent reasoning is provided — the argument goes in a circle.

A valid argument should look like this:
Premise (independent evidence) → Conclusion (new claim supported by the evidence)

But this argument looks like:
Premise (same claim, different words) → Conclusion (claim)
This is a circle, not a logical progression.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
— Two Wrongs Make a Right: This fallacy occurs when someone justifies a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. That is not happening here.
— Look Who Is Talking (Tu Quoque): This fallacy dismisses an argument by attacking the character or behavior of the person making it. No such attack occurs here.
— Scare Tactics (Appeal to Fear): This fallacy manipulates emotions by invoking fear to force agreement. No fear or threat is used in this argument.

Conclusion:
The argument against capital punishment given here commits the fallacy of Begging the Question because the premise ("it is ethically impermissible to inflict death as punishment for crime") is simply a restatement of the conclusion ("capital punishment is morally wrong") — offering no independent logical basis to accept the claim. A genuine argument would need to provide separate, substantive reasons — such as evidence about deterrence, human rights, justice, or empirical data — rather than recycling the conclusion as its own proof.