John Morton was the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor of England at the end of the fifteenth century. Part of his role at such a high level was setting tax policy for the kingdom, with the goal of restoring the assets of Henry VII’s royal house after the war-heavy reigns of Edward IV and Henry VI. Morton’s tax strategy ignored outward displays of wealth or modesty by the gentry, suggesting that neither were acceptable means tests:
“If the subject is seen to live frugally, tell him because he is clearly a money saver of great ability, he can afford to give generously to the King. If, however, the subject lives a life of great extravagance, tell him he, too, can afford to give largely, the proof of his opulence being evident in his expenditure.”
This is the essence of the original Fork.
Morton’s Fork is seen as a logical fallacy when proposed in argument, the reasoning being that if two opposite decisions lead to the same conclusion, at least one of them must be based on specious logic or premises. However, it can also be said that one is subject to the Fork when presented with a dilemma where in each of the choices leads to the same bad result.
Well-known examples of Morton’s Fork in the subjected sense often have death as the bad result. Prior to the Enlightenment it was popular belief that witches were made of wood and thus floated in water (apparently nobody ever swam in water during those times, because otherwise somebody would have noted that everybody floats). Those so accused would be thrown in water as a test: floating would prove witchcraft and lead to a burning at the stake; sinking meant you were exonerated, posthumously, because you were just drowned.