OK, I read the brief Wiki description of Morton’s Fork.
It looks to me like a simple case of justifying one’s conclusion, no matter the evidence. I see no reasoning in it. Just the determination to get what I want.
Common as beans.
Meanwhile, I see nothing in it which even vaguely resonates with the question I asked.
@BestGuessYet explain to me Morton’s logic. I appreciate what you’ve said so far. Thanks.
It seems Morton is saying the lifestyle of the rich comes in 2 flavors - simple and ostentatious - and he seems to be saying that in both cases the rich have to pay taxes. Compare the fork to, if it’s dark I’ll turn on my lamp and if it’s light I’ll turn off my lamp.
I think Morton is saying that he wants everyone to pay tax, but apparently he is only allowed to tax the rich, so he says, “I will label everyone as rich.”
Just common, everyday justification of one’s desired belief.
Yes. That seems like everyday common sense. I doubt anyone actually uses logic to decide whether to light the dark.
Morton doesn’t want everyone to pay taxes. The poor wouldn’t be able to do so. He’s also not declaring everyone is rich. That’s silly.
My lamp fork, if the conclusion is turn off/on the lamp in both cases, tracks Morton’s logic. The lamp fork is ludicrous.
Well, if you won’t lay the issue out for me clearly, I don’t know enough about it to comment.
It’s not clear to me. That’s why I started the thread.
Read this post for clarification, in conjunction with my lamp fork.
Thank you.
P.S. If you think your time is better spent elsewhere, I’ll respect that decision. 
I’m sorry, but I can’t even make out the basic facts of the case.
But thanks for asking me.
For me this problem is like the Collatz conjecture - easy to understand, not so easy to solve. Here’s how it all sums up. Morton’s tasked with collecting taxes. He decides that the rich folks should pay them and they should do so if they lead simple lives or luxurious lives.
The problem here is this. Something to do with contradictory statements.
Oh. It looks like it violates formal logic. Apparently, in formal logic, it is impossible to feed in contradictory variables and come up with the same answer?
Just a guess.
In a real human mind, such a thing is passingly easy.
Just your basic rationalization.
I want X. Therefore, all my calculations will find X to be the answer.
That’s a reasonable answer. Can you tell me more about contradictory variables.
Yes, I believe you’re also right about it being easy, for a human mind. I wonder why it has a separate wikipage and a catchy name too. It must’ve been of historical importance but also relevant to logic in some way.
The last statement is intriguing. Are yout talking of a function like f(x) = 11?
I don’t know the first thing about formal logic. Sorry.
OK, I know one thing: It is called formal logic. But I definitely don’t know the second thing about formal logic.
Yes, it is difficult even in informal logic