If somebody says “You can either have Great Option A or Lousy Option B, which will it be?” Is that a Hobson’s Choice? It is that term only applied if if they say “You can have either Option A or nothing, which will it be?” Or are both Hobson’s Choices? (Basic definition which got me to thining about this: Hobson's choice - Wikipedia)
I’m thinking the answer is both, since in the second case “nothing” is just another option.
-Doug
I think a Hobson’s Choice requires that the alternatives be “Option A or nothing”. If it’s “Great Option A or Lousy Option B” you do have choices but one if clearly preferable - and that would describe most choices.
Yeah, I’d say to be Hobson’s choice it has to be “any color you want, as long as it’s black”.
To play devil’s advocate: I would disagree that most choices have one clearly better alternative than the other. Thus, I wondering if Hobson’s choices are when people present or frame the choices such that one is significantly superior to the other.
Maybe what I’m thinking of is a logical fallicy: like false dichotomy?
No; as the article says Hobson’s Choice is between Option A and nothing, not between significantly different choices (which would often actually mean choosing between three options: a good Option A, poor Option B, and nothing).
Sometimes a choice is forced, in which case “nothing” is not an option. If both (or all) options are bad, and one must make a choice, one is in zugzwang.
My impression is that a true Hobson’s Choice is a situation where the criteria imposed reduce what would otherwise be multiple options down to one. In the original situation giving rise to the phrase, Mr. Hobson had multiple horses in his livery stable. But your choice was to rent the one nearest the door. The others were not available until/unless they became the one nearest the door.
Taking the British politics example from another active thread, Queen Elizabeth may appoint anyone she wants to as Prime Minister – so long as that person can muster the support of a majority of the House of Commons. In any typical election, that reduces the slate of people she may choose from down to one – a situation Mr. Hobson would be familiar with.
Wiki says you’re richtig.
And my Hobson’s choice shouldabeen to post (above) or not. I shouldanotta, in view of the link in the OP which I didn’t see the first time around.
Sorry.
“So you’re saying that my choice is ‘or death?’”
Hobson owned a stable. He rented horses. You could rent the next horse available. No, you could not rent some other horse. The choice of horse was hobson’s choice. It entered the common lexicon.
Tris
No. Your choice is to take the horse Mr. Hobson gives you or walk. As my mom used to say, you’ll be riding shank’s mare (your own legs.)
The point is that the reason that one choice has clearly superior qualities probably is that there is a second choice. If Option A was really the only option then it would probably be as lousy as Option B. It’s the fact that Option B exists that forces Option A to be better in order to be chosen.
We weren’t expecting such a rush.