Seeker

If you don't want service at all, then you are free to not frequent sit-down restaurants that insist on serving you. They are what they are and would not be what they are if most people didn't like them that way. Even so, for those willing to accomodate your non-customary needs you could always make a request for non-service. If they decline, then your problem is not with the tipping custom per se but with restaurant dining generally. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of it either. That's why I don't go to restaurants often. Spitting in food is indefensible, but the proximate cause of that is your server's lousy, irrational attitude in response to your negative evaluation of their performance. Presumably this could occur regardless of the means by which you expressed your dissatisfaction, and for any number of reasons, not just a lack of a tip (I'll not delve into the horror stories of what goes on in fast food kitchens). So I think it's not fair to blame the tipping custom for that breach of good manners. I should point out that tipping isn't really automatic. It still depends on your rational evaluation of the manner of service, and your judgment that it was unsatisfactory (lower or no tip), satisfactory (standard tip), or outstanding (bigger tip). While we agree that tipping for exceptional service is justified, there is still the unresolved matter of service that, though existent, is poor and undesirable, and how the tipping custom is advantageous to just complaining to the management in that context.

Since what you want is not customary, the burden is on you to explain your special requirements ahead of time. Having done so, tipping enables you to express your judgment of how closely your server's performance matched your wishes. Though your requirements may differ from the norm, it does not follow that for you there is no such thing as service that, though existent, is poor and undesirable. Your service may not be prompt enough to satisfy your desire for promptness. You expressly stated the kind of service you wanted, and the purpose of tipping (to express your opinion of whether the service was sub-par, on-par, or above-par) still applies.

And by analogy, if things are above par, you praise. Tipping isn't necessary for that, either. So we shall have to examine the direct nature of the personal service/tipping relationship to see whether it is justified at all. Why should it be customary for there to be a direct link between personal service and compensation, rather than an indirect calculus in which the business serves as intermediary? One reason to remove the middleman in such instances is that it more exactly calibrates the feedback when each individual transaction is a separate opportunity for compensation. Rather than just having the employee's salary varied by an evaluation of the aggregate of customer complaints/praise in an annual salary review cycle (let's say), the result is immediate and direct, and applies each and every time. It also enables the customer to attach a specific dollar amount to their complaint or praise, which is a more objective means of airing their opinion than relying on their verbal skills when they complain to the manager. It is also, I might add, necessarily polite and civil, as an indiscreet rant in front of everyone might not be. This is not an exclusive catalogue, but sufficient grounds to conclude that the personal service/tipping relationship has advantages over just complaining when things go wrong, or praising when things go right.

One includes sitting down and having the food delivered and served to you right at your table in a pleasant atmosphere, the other involves standing in an unpleasant queue. I take this to be an essential feature which distinguishes tipping from non-tipping contexts, i.e. fast food from traditional restaurants, which is rationally justified by the fact that when standing in an unpleasant queue, very little is gained or lost by the manner of service.

Except that it isn't. We know exactly what it is and that it is glaringly evident throughout Objectivism. It is, the observation of the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival (not "ought to be" -- "is") . We need only recall Rand's definition of man as "rational animal" (emphasis here on "rational") to know exactly the essential distinguishing characteristic that she had in mind in speaking of "man qua man". Also, a conclusion of what is "proper", in the sense of characteristic or fitting, rests on facts about man's existence. That we may derive ought from that which is does not imply a circularity but rather the solution to the very problem of how to derive oughts.

It follows from the nature of personal service that the evaluation implicates certain attributes of the individual. This cannot be avoided. We may not want it to be that way, but it's a fact of the nature of the service being provided. An especially warm and friendly attitude, for example, is part of good personal service that we can (and should) desire, appreciate, and factor into our tipping decisions. I agree that tipping applies to those portions of service not otherwise paid for, i.e. not that the food was served, but the manner in which it was served. Of course nothing justifies retaliation over a disagreement as to performance, spitting in food, etc. It may justify a brief inquiry into why service was deemed below par (which all should embrace as it benefits everyone). To use a golf analogy, it seems reasonable to tip based on whether the service is deemed below par (below customary tip), up to par (customary tip), or above par (above customary tip). I suppose the value of having a customary tip is that it enables a certain amount of discrimination in either direction. The premise is that there is such a thing as service that, though existent, is poor and undesirable. I think a position consistent with Objectivism would be that the values of good personal service consist of attributes that are knowable and susceptible of principled application, though not necessarily with exacting precision, and as such subpar service must be clearly evident to warrant a subpar tip (just as superb service must be clearly evident to warrant a superb tip), otherwise the customary tip is both sufficient and proper. For example, I think that we ought not tip less than is customary without a specific grievance in mind - not just a feeling, but a reason, e.g. the food was significantly later than food usually is, the waiter significantly less friendly than waiters generally are, and so forth. The value of having a customary tip for on-par service is that it gives meaning to those occasions in which specific grievances arise with respect to the manner of service. This function would be lost if the below-par (insufficient and unsatisfactory) and on-par (sufficient and satisfactory though not particularly outstanding) cases were treated the same way.

Don't misunderstand, I think he definitely should determine a meaningful purpose and goals for himself. Whether that will be sufficient for him to 1. decide to give up drinking and 2. follow his decisions, is another question. Before he can, he definitely needs to do some serious introspection to get at the root of what is causing him to want to drink.

Well, sure he does. That's part-and-parcel of deciding whether or not to drink. He's got to decide, though - not evade decision and see-saw between regretting the unpleasurable downside and embracing the pleasurable upside of drinking. Those are fine factors to weigh in his decision, but then he needs to make a decision. Note that the process is flawed if giving up drinking is presupposed as the correct outcome, particularly by someone else's judgment. He needs to look at the facts and decide for himself that the value of being sober outweighs the pleasure of being drunk. And once he's made that judgment, that judgment and his sense of integrity are what he will refer back to when subsequently confronted with the pleasurable upside of drinking. Then he will not act in accord with his commitments? This is a separate problem. It is understandable that self-worth plays a role in having integrity, being honest, doing what one says one will do, etc. (in all matters, not just alcohol). In this, a lack of self-worth would indeed be a problem. Certainly, he ought to develop a CPL. But what I don't understand is how someone totally lacking self-worth could decide to give up alcohol, for implicit in that decision is a judgment that one is worth the effort. So while you quite properly emphasize the importance of his feelings, I will continue to emphasize the importance of decision, commitment, and integrity, i.e. an appeal to reason over emotion, because that is the linchpin of it all.

The matter should not be terribly complex. If he quit before, he can again. He wants to; he can; it's rational; that should be sufficient for him to decide to quit. Once he has made that decision, he merely needs to resort to his own sense of integrity. That should be easy - integrity, honesty, pride and so forth are values that we can achieve in indefinite quantities. It's not like money or love: there is no limit. The matter is squarely one of volition: all one has to do is keep his word. It might help for him to put it writing: "I will not drink", or "I will drink on social occasions only", or "I will not purchase alcohol" - whatever his decision is. Then sign his name to it. He's then made a very definite, explicit, concrete promise to himself, and to keep it he need only remember the value of integrity and how awful it would feel to not be able to trust himself. In all seriousness, self-trust is the only thing that can never be taken away, except by ourselves. It's the most precious thing we have. Unfortunately, some people aren't in the habit of making and keeping promises to themselves. They've acquired the belief that life is a meaningless joke. So you've got to take yourself and your life seriously first, and be willing to commit to a self-promise, and have the integrity to follow through.

Well then, what's the problem?

You are saying that Hitler, Stalin, Mao were rational? (edit - to make the quote clear in its meaning)

Maybe this will help tie it together for you. You have offered thinking as the criteria for man's existence. This is exactly congruent with the Objectivist ethics: all it requires is for you to think. Which is to say, the is (to think) and the ought (to think) dovetail precisely.

Well then, there's your solution. If you aren't bound by your agreement with your boss to deliver pizzas and it's a losing proposition for you, don't deliver pizzas. Either they'll pony up more dough, or the customers going hungry at home will. What you should NOT do is continue at a losing proposition and think that airing your complaints here will do any good whatsoever.

So the pizza company does not pay you to deliver pizzas, delivering pizzas is not part of your job description with the company, and the company would not fire you if you refused to deliver a pizza to a known non-tipper, as a failure to complete the job for which you were being paid?

The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

You can, but no one does. The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

For the love of Peikoff, not this argument again. Existence/non-existence is indeed the fundamental alternative, but to what does it pertain? Existence qua man means more than just physical existence (morgue avoidance) because there is more to man than just a body. It also includes, for man, the existence of his rational mind. You cannot destroy that mind AND achieve greater longevity, because longevity necessarily entails the existence of the mind. That fact is glossed over in insisting that existence of the body is sufficient to say that one exists. If the mind goes out of existence as a consequence of your scheme to continue to exist, you have NOT succeeded. You might as well be cremated and say that because your ashes exist, you still exist. The point being that you cannot analyze the question without focusing on what all is necessary for man to exist. When you notice that his needs include more than just physical needs, it should be apparent that your idea of man's survival is flawed. Survival of what? Of the ashes? No. Of the body? No. Of the body and the mind. Ah, there's the answer and the reason why the fundamental alternative leads directly to flourishing and not mere physical survival. Of course, man must choose to live as man by choice. That choice is a primary. You may, if you choose, dismiss your mind and attempt to exist as an animal only - or as ashes, for that matter. There are no Kantian categorical imperatives here, nothing proving that you must choose to live as man. But then, you would have no need of ethics. Your inquiry would then be pointless, so it's kind of assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that in asking the question you see that you have already chosen survival qua man as your standard. I think that point should be clarified before proceeding further. If you hold survival qua man as your standard, then your inquiry is substantive, but there's your answer; if not, the inquiry is pointless anyway, so why press the matter?

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.

Strict constructionism is a popular misnomer. The actual terms are originalism and textualism, referring to what the text of the constitution originally meant. The idea is that this meaning doesn't change over time, in contrast with evolving interpretations that enable judges to inject their personal preferences into their decision-making. Of course, in theory originalism is only as objective as the original meanings were, so it's not necessarily consistent with Objectivism per se. What is consistent, I think, is the idea that words mean things. They mean what they mean, not what a judge wishes they meant to avoid what would be (to the judge) an undesirable outcome. An "evolved" meaning isn't necessarily objective, either, and is untethered from an (at least ostensible) means of textual interpretation that ties the judges hand. But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that either necessarily result in an objectively correct outcome. They do not.

Playwright/screenwriter David Mamet, in his book "On Directing Film", likens the process of storytelling to the 2nd law and suggests the intriguing idea that the common understanding of entropy is backwards - that the universe, like a good story, moves from disorder to order (unsolved problem to solution). I suppose the answer depends on what you mean by order. If you ultimately choose to define order as that which entropy increases, then you've solved your own riddle. Otherwise we would have to challenge the assumption that there is, in fact, increasing order in the universe.

Actually, our discussions about copyright made me change my avatar to an image in the public domain. In truth, I think that none of us should have Nick Gaetano drawings.

We recently discussed extensively the matter of importing music into iTunes here. For now anyway, I have judged this to be acceptable, relying primarily on this FAQ on the Recording Industry Association of America's web site which states "if you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail." I would not extend that judgment further to making whatever copies I want for any purpose, however.

I think it will be Rudy on the Republican side in 2008. We almost don't have to wait for the primaries, because once candidates reach a certain tipping point in public perception, the money will flow their way and that will be that. It used to be that the party conventions actually chose candidates, then they became rubber stamps for primary elections, which became rubber stamps for a handful of early voting states, and now the whole primary process has been replaced with the money chase, which will follow the snowballing of public opinion in each party's ideological base. Thanks to the Internet and 24/7 news cycle, the whole thing is all but sewn up within a few weeks of starting. It's amazing. One thing I don't quite understand is why candidates wait so long to choose their vice presidential candidates. Maybe this time, with things being effectively decided so early, we'll actually see pairings taking place this year, instead of 2008.

Romanticism presents life "as it might be and ought to be". I don't know all the details of Anna Nicole Smith's life, but I find very little that was ideal. She attained wealth by marriage, not productivity. She was not an intellectual and was a tragic figure in many ways.

I recently drove cross-country from Virginia to California by way of Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Two things struck me. The first was the almost incomprehensible amount of open, unoccupied territory in this country (overpopulation nuts need to get a clue about this). The second was the overwhelming cultural emphasis on Christianity on the local radio stations. Apart from the odd NPR stations, which were few and far between, the sense of living amidst a budding theocracy was palpable. Even commercials for auto insurance invoked religion ("... because you only know two things: one, there is a God, and two, we have the lowest rates on car insurance..."). That plus the gargantuan crosses that exist seemingly everywhere, was a bit of culture shock. It's easy for people living on the coasts to discount the strength of the Christian movement in the middle of the country, but after that trip I certainly wouldn't.