I'd like to address a particular argumentative fallacy that I've seen crop up a lot recently, everywhere from personal interactions to national and international politics. It goes by the name of "Morton's Fork," and is designed to pigeonhole a person into making a decision that is unfavorable to them.
The fallacy received its name from a British tax collector by the name of Morton. He rationalized that someone who lived a frugal lifestyle must be hoarding wealth, and so could afford heavy taxes, while one who lived lavishly must obviously be rich and so could also afford heavy taxes. And so he levied heavy taxes universally across his entire jurisdiction, earning the enmity of all of his subjects.
The modern equivalent of Morton's Fork rears its menacing head virtually everywhere in the modern world. One particular example is in bipartisan politics, where voters are forced to choose between two equally unpleasant candidates or ideologies. Often times the two sides are carefully selected so as to share enough in common that they will result in more or less the same agenda, and yet different enough that the illusion of a choice exists. The constituency is thereby forced to support the legislative agenda of those responsible for funding the two candidates' campaigns, whether they be political organizations, foreign powers, or a group of wealthy donors.
Another example is in law enforcement. Often times acting suspiciously is grounds for being confronted, arrested, and even summarily executed by the police. But what does "acting suspiciously" even entail, and how does one avoid doing it? Careful analysis would likely reveal what everyone already knows: that any and every action and behavior can be interpreted as "acting suspiciously". Looking the police in the eye becomes a symptom of criminality, as does averting your gaze. Running too fast becomes a sign of nefarious intentions, as does walking too slow. Anything and everything becomes a criminal offense, to the point where an officer has received blanket authority to destroy the lives of anyone they personally do not like.
Those are two macroscopic examples of Morton's Fork, but even in my personal life I encounter the fallacy almost on a weekly, if not daily basis. Whether it be a family member taking the initiative and selecting two virtually identical options for the rest of the family to "vote on", or a colleague I must meet with presenting two equally inconvenient times when they're "free" (No one is busy 24/7), it happens much more often than is reasonable. And I notice the same trick being used on others as well.
So how can one tell if they are being manipulated by someone employing the "Morton's Fork" strategy, and what are one's options? Well, if you ever get the feeling that you are "damned if you do, and damned if you don't", or feel like there's "no way of winning" or coming out ahead in a certain situation, the chances are very good that someone somewhere is deliberately pulling a Morton's Fork maneuver on you.
The best solution I have found when presented with such a situation is to vote with your feet, and simply walk away. In reality, you will almost never have to choose between only two options. This is a world of infinite possibilities and infinite potential, in which humankind is limited only by its imagination. And compared to infinite options, finite options are all equally constraining, whether that be when one, two, or 50 choices are dishonestly presented before you.
So, that is an explanation of one of the most over-used and abused fallacies in modern times. I hope this helps people to both understand and navigate through it in their lives.
Add new comment