Hobson's Choice is almost always used incorrectly. It is supposed to mean no choice but is almost always used to mean a difficult choice. Thus, in today's example usage - "There, many are given a legal Hobson's choice: Plead guilty and go home or ask for a lawyer and spend longer in custody." - the poor citizen does have a choice, albeit between two very different outcomes.

It is clear that Hobson's choice and Morton's fork (if it is accurately defined) are often confused with each other--including in the example used to illustrate the former. My mother (who was from England) taught me the meaning of Hobson's choice when I was young with the following example: "Would you rather have your head chopped off of your body or your body chopped off of your head?" (allegedly given to an unfortunate victim during England's Catholic-Protestant conflict.

The description of Morton's fork does not make it sound like a choice at all, but rather like an argument or rationalization for making all cases lead to the same desired outcome (eg, all people must pay taxes regardless of their financial status).

I suspect "Hobson's choice" is such a beguiling phrase that modern users have adapted it to apply to a more common situation rather than have it sit unused except for those rare cases to which its original meaning would have it apply. That isn't necessarily wrong, simply a change in meaning. Today it is used in rough equivalence to "between a rock and a hard place" (or "between the sword and the wall," which is the equivalent phrase in Spanish.)

Does it really mean no choice? In the original situation, you still have a choice between the first horse, or not having a horse at all. This is only "no choice" if having a horse is an absolute unequivocal must. You could always walk, or wait for someone else to come and take the first horse, or go somewhere else for a horse, or ...

I think the legal example is quite accurate - you can either take the (guilty) horse, even though it's not to your liking, or the (walking) imprisonment, which might get you a better outcome but will require more time and effort. I suspect the phrase has survived because it appies so well to these almost-but-not-absolutely no choice situations. Otherwise one would just say that one had "no choice".

I agree with doc_c. If it's consistently used in some way, that usage is not wrong even if it is at variance with the original meaning. It's like whinging about decimate being used for something other than 10% reduction or quarantine being used for a period of time other than forty days.

I think wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobsons_choice explains it well:

"A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it"."

The article goes on to discuss the incorrect use:

Hobson's choice is often misused to mean a false illusion of choice, but it is not a choice between two undesirable options, which is a Morton's Fork. Such a choice between two options of nearly equal value is more properly called a dilemma. Hobson's choice is one between something or nothing.

How does a Hobson's choice relate to a Salomons's judgement?

I think Solomon's Judgement was a dilemma. The mother had a choice - lose the baby or kill the baby.

A Hobson's Choice regarding a baby, would be showing up at an adoption clinc (or the maternity ward!) and being told, "You can have this baby or no baby."

In both cases it's a choice is between having a baby or no baby. No?

no, look at Solomon's Judgment again - the real mother believes that she has a choice between having no baby (giving it up but saving the baby) and having no baby (a dead baby)!

Ah..I see. There is a difference. We never had a Hobson to confuse us. I'd best stick to dilemma when mentioning difficult choices. (may Hobson rest in peace)

Shouldn't this thread, "Hobson's Choice is consistently used incorrectly", really be titled "Hobson's Choice is persistently used incorrectly"?

- since there are enough exceptions to make the consistency rather inconsistent!