Pizza Delivery

[Inspector]

1) Determine what you preconceived feelings are on a particular topic

It certainly doesn't account for my behavior when I feel compelled to tip someone even if it does for your's.

Interesting. I thought you might be projecting when you accused us of arguing from preconceived notions, and I see I may have been right. Are you basically admitting that this is what you are doing, or am I misunderstanding you?

[SkyTrooper]

I thought you might be projecting when you accused us of arguing from preconceived notions, and I see I may have been right. Are you basically admitting that this is what you are doing, or am I misunderstanding you?

You're misunderstanding me. My goal the entire time has been primarily to determine the truth, whatever it was. I've said before that I like to save money: I'm generally a spendthrift. I wouldn't see any reason why a group of people that define men as "the Rational Animal" would have to "agree to disagree" on such a simple topic. You should be able to convince me or I should be able to convince you.

No, I do not feel guilty about what I have accused several of you of: the Epistemological method noted here

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=142133

and my general method. Granted some of my earlier posts included some of this, but once I started posting bulleted "proofs" for the analysis of others (which were generally ignored and responded to with subtle Ad Hominem) I had been attempting to use logic to the greatest extent that I can.

I think it's a good thing to note a conflict between your emotional views on a topic (which are based on your values) and on someone else's stated viewpoint (which is based on their values), and then endeavor to determine why. It is a bad thing to automatically accept your emotional views on a topic and then dismiss other viewpoints offhand. I suppose this shows Pride in your values and confidence in the validity of your emotions, but this does not remove the responsibility of actually proving your viewpoint.

My complaint is that the level of hostility on this board makes it impossible to use the method of reason. There is no mutual respect and a significant dismissive attitude.

KendallJ has at least given me the benefit of the doubt that I'm simply trying to figure out the mechanism that underlies tipping. Clearly a tip is not a bribe otherwise we wouldn't have two concepts 'tip' and 'bribe.' You seem to be treating me like a socialist whining that you should sacrifice yourself to the proletariat pizza workers.

[Moebius]

1) A 'Tip' is an additional payment to a worker and is motivated either by Altruism, Benevolence, Showboating, or by a Real Obligation.

Altruism, benevolence, showboating are all valid reasons why people tip. But when you're trying to prove that there is an obligation to tip, you can't just put it down as one of your assumptions.

And there is another reason why people tip -- to ensure good service in the future. This is based on rational self-interest and has nothing to do with any of your reasons mentioned above.

A Tip motivated by a Real Obligation has a nature similar to a fee that has been incurred volitionally in the same way as fees that have been incurred as the result of a contract.

Wrong, by definition. A tip that one is OBLIGATED to pay is not a tip.

7) The legal objective criteria for a contract to qualify as "implied" are that it must be notorious (well known), certain (will always occur), legal (not involving an illegal act), and reasonable

If you're going to use the legal definition, then the question becomes, is it ILLEGAL for me to not tip?

Since the answer is no, the legal definition of the criteria is not only irrelevant, it actually goes against your point.

8) (2) is similar to (4)

9) From (8), the objective criteria for a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation must be similar to (7)

It's not a very convincing way to argue when you say things like "A is similar to B, therefore C must be similar to D". I mean I sort of follow what you're saying, it's just that it's not very convincing given the way you present your argument.

[RationalBiker]

No, I do not feel guilty about what I have accused several of you of: the Epistemological method noted here

The problem is, speaking for myself, I have used logic to discount your argument. I will admit I have become "hostile" in this thread, but not as a substitute for a logical argument, but because it has appeared to me that you refuse to recognize some what I think are very obvious distinctions between what you are saying things are and what I am saying things are. The only time I became "dismissive" of your argument is when you continued to repost it as a link multiple times as if elements of it had not already been refuted, which they had. You claimed victory on an argument that had been refuted.

For instance, when you, in difference to what would appear to be the entire food service industry, replace the word "tip" (with it's obvious voluntary implications) with the word "fee" (which no one in the food service industry calls it). At the very least, at least two people on this board who work (or have worked) for tips (including the topic starter) have agreed that a tip is a tip, it's voluntary and there is no obligation to give one. I also pointed out to you that you chose to come up with your own definition of what a tip which suited your argument and which changed the nature of what a tip is (voluntary) when compared to a fee or payment. You in essence said a "tip" is a "fee" (that A is despite the fact that there is a legitimate reason to have a distinction between those two terms. As best as I can remember, you have not answered this charge, you dismissed it.

You have also dismissed the argument (or at least failed to respond to) that it is "notoriously known" among pizza drivers and companies that some people do not tip. This fact alone ruins your "implied contract" argument.

Another stated area of disagreement is who is responsible for the salary of the delivery driver. I contend his salary is between him and his boss and I have nothing to do with it. I have not seen any rational argument that compels me to abandon that position.

I may have more to add later, but I'm short of time at the moment.

Don't take the fact that we have a heated discussion over this particular topic overshadow the rest of the possible discussions we might have, or think that it is sufficient to effectively judge one's total character and ability to use reason. It would be a mistake to do so.

Therefore, I think you are the one operating with an epistemological error and an emotional attachment to your side of the issue.

[SkyTrooper]

Can we just go point by point? We can pick one at a time and deal with that to avoid several weak arguments to appear as one strong argument. You can just copy and paste your other points down when we get to them.

1) A 'Tip' is an additional payment to a worker and is motivated either by Altruism, Benevolence, Showboating, or by a Real Obligation.

Altruism, benevolence, showboating are all valid reasons why people tip. But when you're trying to prove that there is an obligation to tip, you can't just put it down as one of your assumptions.

For instance, when you, in difference to what would appear to be the entire food service industry, replace the word "tip" (with it's obvious voluntary implications) with the word "fee" (which no one in the food service industry calls it).

I think this is a problem of definitions. The action that we are witnessing is really something like a "Casual Payment" (my term). That is to say, a payment which does not occur because of a legally enforced contract.

Gratuity: Motivated by Altruism

Some low-wage worker seems to be suffering so a person 'tips' them. This is generally a second-hander action, since the person tipping is only tipping because his beliefs give him a feeling of obligation to other people.

Gratuity: Motivated by Benevolence

Maybe a productive employee looks down and you just want to be 'nice' because it will make you feel good. If done occasionally, this seems like a perfectly acceptable behavior.

Bribe: Motivated by Fear or an unfair system

You want to get into a cool club so you 'tip' the bouncer so you don't have to wait in line any more. This is really a straight up bribe.

Casual Fee: Motivated by a Real Obligation

You go visit India and a person offers to carry your luggage. You agree for them to do so and then you 'tip' them for their services. This isn't really a 'gratuity', but a fee that you implied you would pay by agreeing to accept their services. The baggage handler couldn't take you to court for not paying it, but you still should pay it.

These are all obviously my distinctions between different types of "Casual Payments." I'm guessing your claim, in essence, is that my "Casual Fee" in the above list is an anti-concept.

Edit: Added a quote from RationalBiker

Edited March 26, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

You're misunderstanding me.

Could you explain how? Accepting for the moment that you are not engaging in that activity, how do you reconcile that fact with your statements? How are those statements not saying, "since I have this feeling of a need to tip, there must be a rational reason to tip, and therefore I will keep trying to construct formulas to justify it?"

No, I do not feel guilty about what I have accused several of you of: the Epistemological method noted here

Regardless, you are incorrect in your accusation, at least in my case. As I have said several times.

once I started posting bulleted "proofs" for the analysis of others (which were generally ignored and responded to with subtle Ad Hominem) I had been attempting to use logic to the greatest extent that I can.

Why should anyone be expected to disassemble your bulleted "proofs" if the basic premises they rest on are not agreed upon by us?

Clearly a tip is not a bribe otherwise we wouldn't have two concepts 'tip' and 'bribe.' You seem to be treating me like a socialist whining that you should sacrifice yourself to the proletariat pizza workers.

Clearly a tip is not a bribe. What is not so clear is that what pizza guys are getting is not in fact a tip but a bribe. Just because a lot of people are doing something does not in any way prove that they are rational to be doing so. Just because the term "tip" is used by just about everyone does not mean that it is not in fact a bribe or a fee.

Nobody has called you a socialist nor have I thought for a second that you are one. I have taken you at your word from the very beginning that you honestly believe you are entering into a contract of some kind when ordering a pizza. I haven't said a word to suggest otherwise.

[SkyTrooper]

Don't take the fact that we have a heated discussion over this particular topic overshadow the rest of the possible discussions we might have, or think that it is sufficient to effectively judge one's total character and ability to use reason. It would be a mistake to do so.

Nobody has called you a socialist nor have I thought for a second that you are one. I have taken you at your word from the very beginning that you honestly believe you are entering into a contract of some kind when ordering a pizza. I haven't said a word to suggest otherwise.

OK, I'll withdraw my complaint for now. Read my last post. My emotional attachment has been to my concept of a "Casual Fee" which I have finally managed to articulate above. Your offhand rejection of this concept is what led me to peg you all as madmen.

[Seeker]

I can't say that Casual Fee is an anti-concept since you specifically defined it as going to India and having someone offer to carry your bags such that a "real obligation" of payment was created. But then, pizza delivery is not a Casual Fee, because it is not analogous. Specifically, there is no "real obligation" of payment (of a tip) in the case of pizza delivery.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

Casual Fee: Motivated by a Real Obligation

You go visit India and a person offers to carry your luggage. You agree for them to do so and then you 'tip' them for their services. This isn't really a 'gratuity', but a fee that you implied you would pay by agreeing to accept their services. The baggage handler couldn't take you to court for not paying it, but you still should pay it.

To assist you: You need to be entirely clear. What you are arguing for is not in fact a tip at all, but a fee. A fee that you believe "you implied you would pay by agreeing to accept their services." Since it is morally obligatory, then it must be a fee and cannot be a tip.

This language is a big point of confusion. Lots of people who believe in what they call "tipping" actually are advocating a fee. Since that is what you are advocating, then you should say so at all times.

Now: as I said before, and you never responded to, I reject your bullet pointed argument at its root because I do not believe a valid implicit agreement exists.

This is based on the following (all a restatement of what I said previously):

1) The customer is making a deal with the pizza shop, not the driver. The customer does not speak with the driver at all when making the order. His negotiation is entirely with the pizza shop.

2) You are advocating a fee and not a tip.

3) There cannot exist an implied agreement to pay a fee to the driver because the fee has already been explicitly negotiated. (i.e. "The charge is $12 plus $2 for delivery, coming to $14 total.") An implicit agreement cannot contradict an explicit agreement. In any conflict between an implicit agreement and an explicit one, the explicit one wins.

4) Paying someone to do something that they are already contractually bound to do is not a tip or a fee, but a bribe.

5) Bribery is actually immoral. Demanding or expecting a bribe is immoral. To "tip" the pizza guy in this case would actually be to sanction his immoral attitude.

[SkyTrooper]

To assist you: You need to be entirely clear. What you are arguing for is not in fact a tip at all, but a fee. A fee that you believe "you implied you would pay by agreeing to accept their services." Since it is morally obligatory, then it must be a fee and cannot be a tip.

This language is a big point of confusion. Lots of people who believe in what they call "tipping" actually are advocating a fee. Since that is what you are advocating, then you should say so at all times.

I think RationalBiker disagrees that I can call something as a fee that seems to act like a fee but is called a tip by others.

For instance, when you, in difference to what would appear to be the entire food service industry, replace the word "tip" (with it's obvious voluntary implications) with the word "fee" (which no one in the food service industry calls it). At the very least, at least two people on this board who work (or have worked) for tips (including the topic starter) have agreed that a tip is a tip, it's voluntary and there is no obligation to give one. I also pointed out to you that you chose to come up with your own definition of what a tip which suited your argument and which changed the nature of what a tip is (voluntary) when compared to a fee or payment. You in essence said a "tip" is a "fee" (that A is B ) despite the fact that there is a legitimate reason to have a distinction between those two terms. As best as I can remember, you have not answered this charge, you dismissed it.

So Inspector, as you have said and I have agreed, many of the things called 'tips' are actually bribes. RationalBiker seems to suggest from his method of reasoning that if you told someone that a 'tip' to a club bouncer in order to skip the line was actually a bribe you would be wrong. You would apparently be wrong because no one in the nightclub industry calls it a bribe.

So what I am saying in effect is that there are several different things that are called 'tips' all in a category that I call "Casual Payments" which I define as a payment that does not result from the implementation of a legal contract. I am saying that there are some things called 'tips' that are actually more like bribes, some things that are called 'tips' that are actually gratuities, and some things called 'tips' that are actually more like fees.

Do you think my last category of "Casual Payments" is an anti-concept? Lets come to a resolution on this, and we can return to the rest later.

Edited March 26, 2007 by badkarma556

[Inspector]

I think RationalBiker disagrees that I can call something as a fee that seems to act like a fee but is called a tip by others.

Not to speak for him, but I think his problem is not that you call it a fee, but that you are advocating a fee where the entire industry agrees it is not a fee but a tip. He is saying that everyone says "tip" because they do in fact mean tip, and that you are arguing for a fee in defiance of this universal understanding.

Now, there is a confusion here: the universal understanding of "tip" is quite confused and contradictory; confused by the factors you mention (i.e. altruism) and possibly other things. But he is right in saying that, no matter how confused, it is still universally understood to be optional and voluntary and thus still a tip.

Do you think my last category of "Casual Payments" is an anti-concept? Lets come to a resolution on this, and we can return to the rest later.

To do so, I would have to fully understand what you mean by it. I am loathe to introduce neologisms where there is no need. You are advocating a fee; one you think is implicitly agreed to. And as I pointed out, since the fee is for a service that they are already explicitly contractually obliged to provide, that it is in fact a bribe. Bribe being a species of fee, that is.

I believe that is the best understanding of your position, and that it would be both unnecessary and detrimental to attempt to understand it in terms of "causal payment."

A tip on the other hand would be a payment for services above and beyond those which the server is contractually obligated to provide. I am not against tipping pizza deliverers; I am against bribing them - particularly in the case where they believe I am obligated to bribe them.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Inspector

[RationalBiker]

So Inspector, as you have said and I have agreed, many of the things called 'tips' are actually bribes. RationalBiker seems to suggest from his method of reasoning that if you told someone that a 'tip' to a club bouncer in order to skip the line was actually a bribe you would be wrong. You would apparently be wrong because no one in the nightclub industry calls it a bribe.pia

Well, Inspector and I, as well as KendallJ, BaseballGenius, DavidOdden, and several other people have all agreed that "tips" in the service industry known as "pizza delivery" are voluntary and not obligatory in nature. So are we counting heads here to see whose right? I think not. Since the number of people who agree to a particular thing has naught to do with whether they actually got the idea right, I'm not concerned that you and Inspector agree on something.

Also, I have not addressed anything about the transactions between club bouncers and their patrons so please don't try to extrapolate the ideas I have explicitly discussed regarding "pizza delivery" outside of that context. To do so is "dropping context". It does not appear favorable for your use of logic to try to characterize something I said in a situation of different context. It's not conducive to my continued participation in this thread.

You see, the purpose of referring to something as a "tip" in your bouncer case is to minimize the perceived wrong-doing of bribing someone's way into a club. We don't call it something that sounds bad because, well, it sounds bad. In that context, there is a desire to "hide" what's going on. However, there is no need to mask the word "tip" in pizza delivery because, well, they call it just what it is and they recognize if for what it is. There is nothing to "hide" about the non-obligatory gratuity a delivery driver may receive at the additional expense of the customer because there is nothing wrong with it. There is no need for "code talk", something you might say as you wink and nod. It's not simply a matter that they use that terminology "tip" in the delivery business, they recognize it for what it is and that the word "tip" is actually the correct terminology to use.

[RationalBiker]

Apparently there is a pretty considerable divide regarding whether tipping is obligatory or not according to The Original Tipping web site. In a poll of 28549 people (so far) 55% say it's a "must" and 45% say it's optional. This certainly casts a cloud over the certainty concept.

On another page with a Tipping Etiquette Guide, I read the following;

Remember that tipping is discretionary. If you don't think tipping is necessary in a particular circumstance, then don't tip. This is a guide for people who are planning to tip and want to know the appropriate amount. If you think tipping in general is stupid, then don't tip. But don't complain that the minimum wage is too low. Don't complain that the only new jobs being created are low income. And don't send me an email rant about tipping. I won't even respond.

I'm not suggesting that these sources should be considered authoritative in and of themselves, but I think the information they contain strongly indicates that tipping is far from universally accepted as obligatory.

I wouldn't doubt that one could find pages with a differing view point as well. Apparently there is a lot of disagreement over this custom.

[SkyTrooper]

I think its fairly obvious by now that 'tip' has more than one meaning. Tip means several things to different people. For this reason, I've dismissed the term as essentially useless an I really encourage you to do the same.

A tip on the other hand would be a payment for services above and beyond those which the server is contractually obligated to provide. I am not against tipping pizza deliverers; I am against bribing them - particularly in the case where they believe I am obligated to bribe them.

You're jumping ahead of me and I'll explain why in a moment. I share your concern about neologisms, but I fear that working with a new construct like "casual payment" seems to be the only way to get at the issue.

My last category of "casual payment" or "things that are called tips", is a thing that is usually called a 'tip' but is actually more like a fee. If you agree to 'tip' someone who is not otherwise employed but agrees to carry your bag, than the concept I am talking about is that payment. I know it exists and, for me at least, it is a useful concept.

So my intention is to:

1) Get you to recognize that such a concept exists

2) Determine the distinction between that concept and the other "things that are called tips" ('tips' that act like bribes, 'tips' that are used to showboat, 'tips' that are actually voluntary gratuities from benevolence, 'tips' that are Altruistic donations, etc.)

3) Determine objective criteria for that concept

4) Determine what ought is required by what that concept is (my guess: "payment")

5) Evaluate if a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" meets the objective criteria, and act accordingly

Since we haven't made criteria for it yet it would be irresponsible for me to say that it meets those criteria. If I have done so before, I apologize.

In the above post you've:

1) Recognized that there are at least two categories of "things that are called tips." One type, you have realized, are actually bribes. Another type, are voluntary gratuities. You have implicitly (although not yet explicitly) rejected my concept of "things that are called tips but act like fees."

2) Determined the action you should take based on each of your two concepts. With "things that are called tips but are actually bribes" you are vehemently against paying them, and I agree with you. With "things that are called tips but are actually voluntary gratuities" you have decided to pay them whenever you are feeling benevolent, and I agree with you.

3) Without any (stated) objective criteria for either of your two concepts, you have decided that a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" is among the "things that are called tips but are actually bribes" and will act accordingly.

4) You have denounced me as wrong. In all due respect, this is unfair based on the clear epistemological error you have made in (3).

Edit: I removed my suggestion to define 'tip' and 'bribe' because to do so automatically creates a false dichotomy that eliminates all other "things that are called tips"

Edited March 26, 2007 by badkarma556

[RationalBiker]

I think its fairly obvious by now that 'tip' has more than one meaning. Tip means several things to different people. For this reason, I've dismissed the term as essentially useless an I really encourage you to do the same.

Okay, I know I said this two times before in this thread, but now I will add that I am withdrawing completely from it (assuming there is no need to step in as a moderator). We are now 14 pages into this thread and you want to throw out the word "tip" altogether. I'm not here to wrestle over semantics, and quite frankly this topic isn't significant enough to my life to waste any more time on it. I'll will happily let my position stand as is and the peanut gallery can decide for themselves. I'll gladly let others continue the fray as they desire.

I hope you can find some resolution with this because I know I have.

Take care.

[SkyTrooper]

Okay, I know I said this two times before in this thread, but now I will add that I am withdrawing completely from it (assuming there is no need to step in as a moderator).

Did you read the rest of my post? Your key logical error is to lump several different things together and call them all "tips." This is not semantics.

True this should have been resolved already but a worse result would be to have this go on for so long and not reach a conclusion. If Objectivists can't agree on the "when should I tip?" question, how do you expect to answer any important questions.

I would really encourage you to stay. Read my last post again, and if you don't understand where I'm coming from, no hard feelings.

[Inspector]

I share your concern about neologisms, but I fear that working with a new construct like "casual payment" seems to be the only way to get at the issue.

I disagree and explicitly reject your construct of "casual payment." If you mean a tip, say "tip." If you mean a fee, say "fee." If you mean bribe, say "bribe." I don't care if most people muddle this: I will not muddle it. RationalBiker is right to leave if you insist on muddling matters.

If you agree to 'tip' someone who is not otherwise employed but agrees to carry your bag, than the concept I am talking about is that payment. I know it exists and, for me at least, it is a useful concept.

That "tip" is a fee and not a tip.

1) Get you to recognize that such a concept exists

Done, so long as you use the scare quotes for "tip" and then explain that it is actually a fee.

2) Determine the distinction between that concept and the other "things that are called tips" ('tips' that act like bribes, 'tips' that are used to showboat, 'tips' that are actually voluntary gratuities from benevolence, 'tips' that are Altruistic donations, etc.)

"Tips" that act like bribes are bribes. They are only called tips to hide the fact that they are bribes.

"Tips" for showboating are showboating. They are called tips only to hide the fact that they are showboating.

"Tips" from altruism are actually charity, with "tip" used as a euphemism in the same way it is sometimes done for a bribe, in order to cover up the act involved.

A actual tip, as I explained earlier, is a voluntary payment made for when you think someone has done something above and beyond the job he is contractually obligated to do for you. It is a recognition of and payment for a value you have gained from him.

And, even though you didn't ask, a fee is a payment for a service that was contracted for (either explicitly or implicitly).

Also, it is possible to work out a deal with a business to secure preferential treatment. If done behind the back of the business owner, then this is a bribe. If done in the open, with the business owner, this is a fee.

3) Determine objective criteria for that concept

I believe I have laid this out above.

4) Determine what ought is required by what that concept is (my guess: "payment")

Bribes are immoral; use them in contexts where you are escaping a brutal situation, etc. Like lies.

Showboating is second-handed and immoral.

Altruism and its charity is immoral.

Under normal circumstances, you ought to pay the fees you agree to pay.

Under normal circumstances, you ought to give actual tips when they are earned by people who you do business with who provide you with value above and beyond the contracts they have with you, to the extent that you are capable of reciprocation. Assuming, of course, that you actually wanted the value you are gaining. That's a general rule, not an absolute. There is a lot of context here that I haven't hashed out and really am not too terribly interested in hashing out. I'll deal with it in my own life as it comes up. If you want to formulate theorems, by all means have at it. But the point is, that for someone who is simply performing the job they are contracted to do: no tip.

5) Evaluate if a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" meets the objective criteria, and act accordingly

Since he is, in most cases, not providing any value above and beyond the fulfillment of the contract of pizza delivery...... NO TIP.

3) Without any (stated) objective criteria for either of your two concepts, you have decided that a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" is among the "things that are called tips but are actually bribes" and will act accordingly.

I provided a stated objective criteria which you ignored. Actually, I've stated it several times now, and you have ignored it several times. I actually pointed out the fact that you had ignored it in my previous post, and yet you still ignore it.

Here it is, once again:

Now: as I said before, and you never responded to, I reject your bullet pointed argument at its root because I do not believe a valid implicit agreement exists.

This is based on the following (all a restatement of what I said previously):

1) The customer is making a deal with the pizza shop, not the driver. The customer does not speak with the driver at all when making the order. His negotiation is entirely with the pizza shop.

2) You are advocating a fee and not a tip.

3) There cannot exist an implied agreement to pay a fee to the driver because the fee has already been explicitly negotiated. (i.e. "The charge is $12 plus $2 for delivery, coming to $14 total.") An implicit agreement cannot contradict an explicit agreement. In any conflict between an implicit agreement and an explicit one, the explicit one wins.

4) Paying someone to do something that they are already contractually bound to do is not a tip or a fee, but a bribe.

5) Bribery is actually immoral. Demanding or expecting a bribe is immoral. To "tip" the pizza guy in this case would actually be to sanction his immoral attitude.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Inspector

[Moebius]

badkarma,

It's difficult to have a logical discussion when you continually make up new concepts and words out of the blue when in fact most people understand exactly what a tip means.

A tip is a tip, end of story. All the other situations you described are simply cases of people using the word "tip" as an euphemism to mean something else. Similar to how someone can call marijuana "weed" or "grass", or diamonds a "rock" or "ice". When we're talking about waiters or pizza drivers, a tip is a tip. End of story.

[SkyTrooper]

Moebius,

I share your concern about neologisms, but I fear that working with a new construct like "casual payment" seems to be the only way to get at the issue.

I disagree and explicitly reject your construct of "casual payment."

Alright, I think that would be the easier way to sort things out but I'll yield it to you. Instead, I will say "things that are called tips."

I disagree and explicitly reject your construct of "casual payment." If you mean a tip, say "tip." If you mean a fee, say "fee." If you mean bribe, say "bribe."

I will say "things that are called tips but act like bribes", etc.

If you agree to 'tip' someone who is not otherwise employed but agrees to carry your bag, than the concept I am talking about is that payment. I know it exists and, for me at least, it is a useful concept.

That "tip" is a fee and not a tip.

I've agreed with this, and got slammed when using the term fee. The main difference appears to be that "things that are called tips but are actually fees" have no legal force behind them. E.g. the person who has agreed to carry your bag in exchange for a "thing that is called a tip but is actually a fee" cannot have you arrested for not paying it.

1) Get you to recognize that such a concept exists

Done, so long as you use the scare quotes for "tip" and then explain that it is actually a fee.

Thank you.

2) Determine the distinction between that concept and the other "things that are called tips" ('tips' that act like bribes, 'tips' that are used to showboat, 'tips' that are actually voluntary gratuities from benevolence, 'tips' that are Altruistic donations, etc.)

"Tips" that act like bribes are bribes. They are only called tips to hide the fact that they are bribes.

I disagree here. This is the legal definition of a bribe:

bribery n. the crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his/her duties. Bribery includes paying to get government contracts (cutting the roads commissioner in for a secret percentage of the profit), giving a bottle of liquor to a building inspector to ignore a violation or grant a permit, or selling stock to a Congressman at a cut-rate price.

Therefore the main difference is that a bribe is illegal, whereas a "thing that is called a tip but acts like a bribe" does not have the force of law behind it. No one would ever arrest someone for tipping a delivery driver. Therefore I am against your idea that a "thing that is called a tip but acts like a bribe" is exactly the same as a bribe. The objective criteria for "things that are called tips but act like bribes" will be slightly different than bribes. The ought will also be different: instead of "not pay and call the cops" the correct action will be "not pay."

"Tips" for showboating are showboating. They are called tips only to hide the fact that they are showboating.

I think we are basically in agreement here. There is no legal status for "showboating" so there is no difference between "things that are called tips and are actually showboating" and "showboating." Whatever the objective criteria for showboating is, "things that are tips and are actually showboating" will be the same. The ought will be the same: "don't do pay money in order to impress people."

"Tips" from altruism are actually charity, with "tip" used as a euphemism in the same way it is sometimes done for a bribe, in order to cover up the act involved.

Once again I disagree slightly here. Charity is legally recognized and given tax deductions, whereas "things that are called tips but act like charity" are not legally recognized. No one would reasonably attempt to claim "things that are called tips but act like charity" on their tax return. Therefore, I do not believe "things that are called tips but act like charity" are exactly the same as charity and so will have different objective criteria. The ought will be different: instead of "don't pay if motivated by Altruism, do pay if motivated by Benevolence, report the the IRS for a tax deduction" the correct action will be "only pay if motivated by Benevolence."

A actual tip, as I explained earlier, is a voluntary payment made for when you think someone has done something above and beyond the job he is contractually obligated to do for you. It is a recognition of and payment for a value you have gained from him.

We are in agreement that this is the definition of "things that are called tips and are actually voluntary gratuities." The correct ought is "only pay for extremely extraordinary service." I don't know what the proper objective criteria for this is.

And, even though you didn't ask, a fee is a payment for a service that was contracted for (either explicitly or implicitly).

Actually don't you remember that whole mess when I was arguing for an implied contract? The legal definition of an implied contract is:

implied contract n. an agreement which is found to exist based on the circumstances when to deny a contract would be unfair and/or result in unjust enrichment to one of the parties. An implied contract is distinguished from an "express contract."

The difference I see between "things that are called tips but act like fees" and implied contracts is the legal status of the two entities. You do not legally have to pay them. Because they are different, the objective criteria for each will be different. The correct ought will be different because the two entities are different: instead of "pay if the agreement is fulfilled, call the cops to enforce the contract" it will be "pay if the agreement is fulfilled."

3) Determine objective criteria for that concept

I believe I have laid this out above.

I don't think we have this established yet. I was thinking more along the lines of the legal criteria Inspector was presenting earlier. For example,

Objective Criteria for an Implied Contract

Notorious: This act is well known.

Certain: You can expect this act to always occur.

Legal: You can't claim illegal acts of custom.

Reasonable

5) Evaluate if a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" meets the objective criteria, and act accordingly

Since he is, in most cases, not providing any value above and beyond the fulfillment of the contract of pizza delivery...... NO TIP.

Well you haven't actually laid it out, but I can gather your objective criteria from your posts

Probable Criteria for Moebius's Concept of "things that are called tips but act like bribes"

Simultaneous: the payment exists at the same time as an explicit (stated) contract with another party

Added Value: there is no added value beyond the stated contract with the other party

Moebius's ought for "things that are called tips but act like bribes": DON'T PAY

Probable Criteria for Moebius's Concept of "things that are called tips but are actually gratuities"

Communication: Moebius communicates with the person who has a claim on a gratuity prior to ordering

Added Value: there is added value beyond what is stated in his contract with any other parties

Moebius's ought for "things that are called tips but act like gratuities": Pay if feeling benevolent.

If I'm wrong about these, please correct me with the actual objective criteria you are using for each concept.

3) There cannot exist an implied agreement to pay a fee to the driver because the fee has already been explicitly negotiated. (i.e. "The charge is $12 plus $2 for delivery, coming to $14 total.") An implicit agreement cannot contradict an explicit agreement. In any conflict between an implicit agreement and an explicit one, the explicit one wins.

This is what I called your "Simultaneous" requirement. My question is why? Why is it impossible to have both an implied agreement with one party and a stated agreement with another? The fact is that it is no more contradictory to have an implied contract with one party and a stated contract with another than it is to have a stated contract for one person to paint your house and another stated contract for a person to tile your floor. I agree that if they conflict, say that you enter into one contract with one person to tile your floor and another contract with a different person to do the same work, there is a contradiction there.

1) The customer is making a deal with the pizza shop, not the driver. The customer does not speak with the driver at all when making the order. His negotiation is entirely with the pizza shop.

This is what I called your "Communication" requirement and essentially amounts to "I cannot make a deal with someone I have not spoken to." Remember about a thousand posts back when I was explaining how a transaction occurring enough times can create an "implied contract by custom"? This is a contract that everyone is aware of but no one needs to state because it is used so often. I showed that the vast majority of any contract, unless it is for a recently introduced good or service, is implied. Therefore, there are contracts you can enter into without speaking to the person you are entering into it with yet. Is pizza delivery one of these? Hard to say if we don't have objective criteria for "things that are called tips but act like fees."

A actual tip, as I explained earlier, is a voluntary payment made for when you think someone has done something above and beyond the job he is contractually obligated to do for you. It is a recognition of and payment for a value you have gained from him.

This is what I called your "Added Value" requirement. I actually agree with this criteria. To differentiate between "things that are called tips but act like bribes" and "things that are called tips but act like fees" I have to show that you're "tip" is in exchange for value; an exchange of value for value. I explained a while back how things like the timeliness and the dress, appearance, and deportment of the driver are not covered by your stated agreement with the company. For many companies that do not have delivery fees (which don't go to drivers anyway), delivery is not covered by your stated agreement with the company either.

3) Without any (stated) objective criteria for either of your two concepts, you have decided that a "Tip to a Delivery Driver" is among the "things that are called tips but are actually bribes" and will act accordingly.

Bribery is actually immoral. Demanding or expecting a bribe is immoral. To "tip" the pizza guy in this case would actually be to sanction his immoral attitude.

You did not show me your objective criteria in any concise format, so I had to gather it from your posts. Yes I think this conclusion follows from your objective criteria for "things that are called tips but act like bribes." I hope I have shown how your criteria is lacking.

Edit: Fixed my grammar in the second sentence.

Edited March 26, 2007 by badkarma556

[SkyTrooper]

The last post should be addressed to Inspector, not Moebius. All the quotes are from Inspector and not Moebius but the forum isn't letting me edit my post for some reason. Sorry for any confusion that will cause.

[Inspector]

The last post should be addressed to Inspector, not Moebius. All the quotes are from Inspector and not Moebius but the forum isn't letting me edit my post for some reason. Sorry for any confusion that will cause.

In addition, the criteria you mention are not mine:

(Notorious, Certain, Legal, Reasonable)

[Inspector]

Alright, I think that would be the easier way to sort things out but I'll yield it to you. Instead, I will say "things that are called tips."

I will say "things that are called tips but act like bribes", etc.

Okay.

I've agreed with this, and got slammed when using the term fee.

As I said before, you were not slammed for using the term as such. See my post for details.

I disagree here. This is the legal definition of a bribe:

It is not, however, the only definition of a bribe. There is a whole page full of them here.

I think the term is appropriate in the places I use it because, as I said, there is dishonesty in expecting payment for the already-paid-for. The use of the term indicates this dishonesty, not illegality. So since I never prescribed for you to call the cops, you don't have to un-prescribe it.

I think we are basically in agreement here. ["showboating"]

Okay.

Once again I disagree slightly here.

Again, you use too narrow a definition. Charity is "money given out of altruism." That's all I meant. And we seem to agree that one ought not give money from altruism.

We are in agreement that this is the definition of "things that are called tips and are actually voluntary gratuities." The correct ought is "only pay for extremely extraordinary service." I don't know what the proper objective criteria for this is.

Good.

The difference I see between "things that are called tips but act like fees" and implied contracts is the legal status of the two entities. You do not legally have to pay them.

The source of the confusion is probably the fact that the particular "things that are called tips but act like fees" do not in fact exist. If you go with that idea, then it resolves your seeming contradiction.

This is what I called your "Simultaneous" requirement. My question is why? Why is it impossible to have both an implied agreement with one party and a stated agreement with another?

Because, and this is very important, in the case of the pizza delivery, the deliveryman is an employee of the pizza place. He is fulfilling the contract you have with the pizza place. Inasmuch as he is fulfilling that contract, he is already obliged to fulfill it.

An example of this that was a huge headache for me is that I took my car to a shop to be fixed about a year and a half ago. They didn't have the tools or expertise to fix the engine, so they subcontracted it to another shop. When that shop screwed up, they told me to go take it up with that shop. This, as my lawyer explained to them, is completely wrong. Subcontracting something to someone else does not nullify one's contractual responsibility.

The same, of course, is true of one's employees. When you have a contract with the pizza shop, the employee is bound by that contract to deliver the pizza.

I agree that if they conflict, say that you enter into one contract with one person to tile your floor and another contract with a different person to do the same work, there is a contradiction there.

Well, there you go.

Hard to say if we don't have objective criteria for "things that are called tips but act like fees."

Have you considered that an objective criteria may be impossible because the whole thing is non-objective? Why do you think it is so confined to third world countries? Because they like the non-objective there; it's a reflection of the reason they're so poor.

I explained a while back how things like the timeliness and the dress, appearance, and deportment of the driver are not covered by your stated agreement with the company.

I agree. If you are into that sort of thing, feel free to tip for that.

For many companies that do not have delivery fees (which don't go to drivers anyway), delivery is not covered by your stated agreement with the company either.

I disagree. Or maybe I've just never seen such a place. I have never seen a place that does not either list a delivery fee or say explicitly: "free delivery." If I ever see a pizza place that does neither of the above, then I will ask them how much for delivery.

I hope I have shown how your criteria is lacking.

I hope I've cleared that up for you now.

Yes I think this conclusion follows from your objective criteria for "things that are called tips but act like bribes."

Well, all right then! The rest, from here, should be wrap-up.

[SkyTrooper]

My last category of "casual payment" or "things that are called tips", is a thing that is usually called a 'tip' but is actually more like a fee. If you agree to 'tip' someone who is not otherwise employed but agrees to carry your bag, than the concept I am talking about is that payment. I know it exists and, for me at least, it is a useful concept.

So my intention is to:

1) Get you to recognize that such a concept exists

Done, so long as you use the scare quotes for "tip" and then explain that it is actually a fee.

The source of the confusion is probably the fact that the particular "things that are called tips but act like fees" do not in fact exist. If you go with that idea, then it resolves your seeming contradiction.

You seriously want to go back to this again?

It is a lot less useful to have a "tip" that is really a bribe as a concept than a "tip" that is really a fee. A bribe presupposes that you need to pay it in order to accomplish something, and the only real example I can think of is a bouncer at a nightclub. The driver has already brought you the pizza, what would you possibly need to bribe him for? Are you afraid he is going to kick your ass for being cheap?

Your assertion that tipping a delivery driver is a bribe and therefore immoral is ridiculous. Your conclusion, that

5) Bribery is actually immoral. Demanding or expecting a bribe is immoral. To "tip" the pizza guy in this case would actually be to sanction his immoral attitude.

is ridiculous to any objective observer. How does it feel to be the only moral person in a world of immorality? The logical conclusions of you thinking are ridiculous: all pizza places basically work on the same payment system, a driver cannot even break even without tips, accepting tips is immoral, therefore all drivers should quit and do something else regardless of how much they love their work.

I'm done arguing against a brick wall: it's time to bring an end to this topic. Can someone lock this please?

[RationalBiker]

Can someone lock this please?

I didn't lock the thread when I chose to stop discussing it so I'm certainly not going to lock it because you are through. If you don't want to discuss it any more, don't discuss it. Others are free to continue as they wish.

[Inspector]

How does it feel to be the only moral person in a world of immorality?

Pretty darn good.

The logical conclusions of you thinking are ridiculous: all pizza places basically work on the same payment system, a driver cannot even break even without tips, accepting tips is immoral, therefore all drivers should quit and do something else regardless of how much they love their work.

You should well know that just because a lot of people do it, does not make it moral. Furthermore, your argument form above is ludicrous. I have to be wrong because if I was right it would require upheaval of the entire system? Hah! You might want to look into the Objectivist position on taxes.

I'm done arguing against a brick wall: it's time to bring an end to this topic. Can someone lock this please?

If you're done arguing, then just stop posting. Jeez.