Morton’s fork is the tax dilemma. If you’re poor you’ve saved money. If you’re rich you have money to spare. Either way you have to pay taxes.
The Wikipage claims this is a false dilemma. I thought it might be of interest to some folk.
This is a wiki. Edit away
Philosophy of mathematics? Seems silly. If you are poor you don’t have money. Define “poor”.
Logic & Philosophy of mathematics.
Poor probably refers to the 10th percentile of folk, moneywise. Do you deny that the poor save money, because they’re financially insecure? I can see your point though. 
I have troubles understanding the thing but if the idea is that the Morton’s fork shows that anybody can give to charity (or afford the benevolence in the original situation) then yeah, it looks like a false dilemma.
The fork presents the case of the rich and the poor who saved money but obviously there is also the poor who doesn’t have money.
Or you could say that going from “they are poor” to “obviously then they have enough money from saving” is a non-sequitur.
Yes, one response is to say that there’s an issue with what we mean by poor.
This doesn’t seem to work at all. Poor people typically don’t save since they need their money to survive. That too is debatable, since probably well over 10% of people even in rich countries live in debt. They have negative money. I certainly spent more than 10% of my life underwater, and I don’t consider myself poor.
There’s no obligation to give to charity either way. If it’s an obligation, it’s a tax, not charity. With a tax, there’s a negative consequence for not doing it.
Third, even if both are somehow obligated to give to charity, I see no dilemma identified. There’s no paradox resulting from everybody giving, and those most in need benefiting from the charity. It’s just socialism in action.
Thanks for elaborating the point. Yes, poor means 0 savings, all the money that comes in goes out. The rich manage to tuck away some cash. So, in actuality the rich have to be charitable, while the poor need not be.
Tax is a bit different though as it’s used for public works (roads, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.).
The dilemma is that one has to be charitable, poor/rich.
The argument takes two opposite behaviors (spending vs. saving) and uses both as “proof” of the same underlying condition (having excess money). In formal logic, two contradictory inputs cannot validly guarantee the exact same output without ignoring key variables.
I’m not so sure about that. First off these 2 aren’t contradictory. Second, the implication doesn’t jar the senses, if you know what I mean.
Morton’s Fork is named after John Morton, a 15th century British bishop and tax collector. He claimed people who lived ostentatiously must have money and could pay taxes, and people who lived frugally must have saved money by economizing, snd could pay taxes.
It is not a logical paradox. It’s a tax collection scheme.
Yes, and the false equivocation here is between the poor and those living frugally by choice. But the poor actually are preciely those who cannot afford to live frugally (by choice).
I thought it was charity, donating to the church 
One solution is to be found in what poor means.
Another member says that contradictory inputs can’t have the same something.
The surest way to grow a city is to make it a tax haven.
It wasn’t nice to be either rich or poor
This seems to leverage a presumption that if one has money ‘saved’ at all, one has to give to charity. This premise seems unjustified to me.
This argument seems to beg its own conclusion. It may be moot, but I also disagree with even premise 1, since it’s possible to be somewhere between, getting by, having some savings perhaps, but still not ‘rich’, still dependent month to month on continued employment.
‘Rich’ is often defined as ‘has more money than me’. In other words, it’s relative.
I think ecurb got it right. It simply means people have to pay their taxes.
It’s a false dilemma because, as you said, there middle-class people. Don’t they have to pay taxes?
Another issue is the poor and their money vis-à-vis the rich and theirs.
From what I could gather the fork was in regards to a benevolence tax which only applied to the wealthiest citizens.
From wiki
A benevolence, also called a loving contribution, voluntary contribution or free gift, was a type of tax imposed by several English monarchs from the 15th to the 17th century. Although taken under the guise of a charitable contribution to the King, the money was in fact extorted from the king’s subjects. Commissioners or letters were sent from town to town, detailing the financial need of the king and asking that the town’s wealthiest pay. The requested could not refuse to give, unless they denied the king’s need or professed their own poverty, a “doubtless difficult, if not virtually impossible” task
Put in that context, the fork was to get the wealthy who cried poor to pay.
Another lesson of the importance of context.
Agree. Morton was trying to collect taxes. His life may have been on the line. After all, kings don’t pass out from monasteries. Morton himself seems divested from reality, that the poor are poor and the wealthy are rich.
Not sure you understood the point. The benevolence tax was not applied to all citizens, only the wealthiest. As such, it wasn’t levied against the poor.
Thank you. Morton’s fork has 2 prongs.
