SkyTrooper

I dispute this. The payment to the pizza place does not include delivering the pizza. Recently, many places have instituted "delivery fees" but being as the new fees do not go to or involve the driver they are "delivery fees" in name only. The payment for the driver to be waiting for you to call and order a pizza comes from the company. The payment for the driver delivering the pizza and doing so in a fast and professional manner comes from you in the form of a tip. Inspector, I will no longer respond to your posts. I have nothing to say to you.

I built a bridge between your cognitive content and mine. I showed that you have essentially two constructs that lie under the concept "Tip": tip/bribe and tip/gratuity. I also explained that I have several constructs that I call "Tips": tip/bribe, tip/fee, tip/gratuity(Altruism), and tip/gratuity(Benevolence). Despite the clear pathway to finally resolving this ridiculous dispute, which would simply consist of checking to see if "Pizza Delivery Tip" meets the criteria for each concept, you opted to go back on previous positions you conceded and return to your dismissive method. You went back on yielding that the concept of tip/fee "things that are called tips but are actually fees" even existed. Now you have withdrawn your assertion that you can't have a contract with both an employer and his employee, and treated your withdrawal of this point as trivial, even though your entire argument for the "immorality" of tipping delivery drivers was based on it. So I don't know what the status of our discussion is. I suppose its analogous to madmen bickering in an insane asylum.

As for your second argument: as strange as it may sound, your delivery driver is not contractually obligated to deliver pizzas. His contract is to work for Domino's or Pizza Hut, and he signs the same contract and is paid the same rate as the in-store personnel. He is payed (usually) 0.50 cents per delivery plus tips for bringing you pizzas, but if he shows up to work without a car he will be assigned to make pizzas, do dishes, etc. I still don't see where you've gotten your "mutually exclusive" criteria for contracts from. In a free society you can hire a general contractor to paint half your floor and then pay the sub contractor hired to do the job (by the GC) to paint the other half of the floor. In the same way, you can enter into a contract with the employee to deliver the pizza and with his employer to have the pizza made.

(bold mine) So the driver comes to the door with the pizza, he hands you the pizza and your bill, and then you "bribe" him??? What is the something you are giving him an incentive to do? If you don't pay the "bribe", there is no possible negative consequence that you can suffer. So of the criteria listed from that definition: 1) incentive (money) 2) given to somebody 3) to do something 4) usually illegal or dishonest It meets (1) and (2) but miserably fails at (3). As for (4) it is certainly not illegal and you are the only person I know that has ever called it dishonest. A Tip is not a bribe by this definition.

Prove that a tip to a delivery driver is a form of bribe. Use any definition off an academic or government website you choose and show that it meets the criteria stated in that definition.

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 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?

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.

Moebius, 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. 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. Thank you. 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." 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." 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." 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. 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." 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 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. 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. 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." 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. 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.

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.

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. 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"

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. 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.

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.

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. 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

I wrote my Representative (who I had met when applying to service academies) some time ago making the case for strikes on Iran. For someone in the military, the letter was a risk to my career. I am convinced that our fundamental view of foreign policy must change before we will have any hope of success defeating the geopolitical version of Islam which is a serious threat to our lives. With a change in our foreign policy we would also be in an unprecedented position to deal the death blow to Socialism. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend "The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest" by Peter Schwartz (available off ARI).

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.

Actually I need to thank my detractors, you have greatly improved my thinking on this. This argument is a logical support of both your argument and mine, and simply requires objective criteria for (9) and debate over (10) 1) A 'Tip' is an additional payment to a worker and is motivated either by Altruism, Benevolence, Showboating, or by a Real Obligation. 2) 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. 3) A contract defines the conditions under which two parties are willing to trade value 4) From the nature of (3), there is such an entity as an "implied contract" (a contract which is understood by both parties but not stated) 5) It is in a person's rational self-interest to fulfill all contracts he enters into 6) Every entity has objective criteria that must be used to identify it 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 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) 10) "Pizza Delivery" is the act of having Pizza delivered from elsewhere to the door of the Customer 11) If a tip to a Pizza Delivery Driver meets the criteria of a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation than, from (8) and (5), it should be payed 12) If a tip to a Pizza Delivery Driver does not meet the criteria of a Tip motivated by a Real Obligation, from (8) and (5), it should not be payed

The point I am making, and what is seriously driving me crazy here, is the simple obvious fact that David's explanation is insufficient. It certainly doesn't account for my behavior when I feel compelled to tip someone even if it does for your's. Your logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to have been "I rarely tip unless I'm feeling benevolent, here is an explanation that explains what I do, therefore this explanation must be right." My 'self-evident' claim is that there are different reasons why people give tips. Some of the types of tips are a 'gratuity' that are a result of benevolence, trying to look rich, or having motivations of Altruism. There is at least one type of tip that is more like a 'fee' and exists to compensate a worker for work he has done for you beyond what he was required to do by his employer. All I'm asking and I'll I've ever asked for you to take as self-evident is this: David's explanation is lacking and we should use logic along with an attitude of basic respect for our positions to pursue the truth. If you can't accept that, we're done here.

I'm fairly sick of this topic, but if you want to find the actual truth of the matter you might want to start from this observation: The source of some tips is 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. The source of some tips is 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. The source of some tips is a Rational 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. So, determine an objective criteria for each and determine if a "Delivery Driver Tip" meets the criteria. My estimate is that when you see someone give a driver $20 for a $15 bill what you are really witnessing is ($15 Spoken Agreement to Pay for the Pizza)+($1.50 Tip from a Rational Obligation)+($3.50 Tip from Altruism)=$20 Let me guess what the reply will be "No. You are wrong. Follow your silly byzantine customs if you want but you are wrong. Stop propagating your irrational ideas."

Obviously I'm not about to damn Objectivists, but my frustration on this isn't coming from nowhere. I did not want you to take the argument as self-evident, but to take the fact that your explanation was lacking and that we should rationally determine a proper explanation as obvious. I observe: 1) Almost all people feel compelled to tip delivery drivers, no one feels compelled to tip engineers. 2) I would never dream of not tipping a delivery driver. Particularly since I know that is how they make a profit. If we were just to use Oxan's Razor, my explanation (although not complete) will more effectively describe these observations than any other that I have seen. My frustration comes from a few cases where I've felt like I was fighting against an Epistemological method that I'm sure Ayn Rand would not approve of. It seems to go something like this: 1) Determine what you preconceived feelings are on a particular topic 2) Assert your preconceived feelings as the proper explanation 3) Support your preconceived feelings using a stream of consciousness argument 4) Use Rand's terms to give the stream of consciousness argument an air of illegitimacy 5) Reread your argument and convince yourself that it is correct 6) Dismiss any dissenters offhand as "irrational" If there is an Objectivist trapping, it is this method. Now I have to admit I've slipped into this sort of explanation on occasion when talking to people about topics I don't have much interest in. It's mostly from intellectual laziness. If you want to go on I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you'll have to determine the method for doing so and take the lead.

I honestly feel no need to respond to anything you people just said, until you agree the self evident fact that there is something that makes you more compelled to tip a delivery driver than an engineer, and you agree to use logic to investigate what that thing is. Honestly I'm extremely disappointed. I thought Objectivists might the only sane people left on the planet. I guess I was wrong. This remains my conclusion: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=142085

OK, just to clarify, what is the purpose of a philosophical discussion? Are we attempting to prove our preconcieved notions, or actually discover the truth of the matter? I didn't mean to snap a KendallJ, but this constant prodding has become ridiculous. Assuming that it is in our best interests to actually learn what the truth is, and that we should act in our best interests, what method should we use to do so? Should we attack each other with subtle Ad Hominem and reply to ordered logical arguments with rants? Maybe we should pretend to be "Objectivist" priests and explain to the poor confused irrational dissenters how they can achieve redemption. I hope you realize the logical conclusion of the predominant line of thinking on in this thread is that pizza delivery drivers should all quit their jobs and go do something else. If no one wants to have a real discussion about it, I'm prepared to stick this on top of the philosophical hill http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=141935 and declare victory. I will also be declaring myself the Patron Philosopher of Tipped Workers.

Are you joking?! I was brainstorming, which should have been obvious from reading that post. I've noticed a tendency for people on this board to misinterpret every comment in the worst way possible and then argue against it. Didn't you just concede the "100% certain to happen" criteria as impossible?

Actually you did deny it. Unless you seriously misunderstood my argument. Now you are at the same point I am at with KendallJ and we are all basically on the same page. Please list what objective criteria you propose to define an "implied contract by custom," give some of your own examples, and show how tipping fails to meet these criteria. Why? When did the Company agree to bring you your pizza in a timely fashion? Based on the contract you claim to have entered into, there does not seem to be any rational reason that you should be upset over a pizza delivered four hours after you've ordered it.

What do you suggest as our revised objective criteria for an implied contract? It seems to me that the underlying principle must be that the implied contract must not go into effect unless entered into volitionally. Accidentally entering into a contract to pay someone a few dollars for a few minutes worth of labor does not have particularly bad consequences, whereas accidentally entering into a more serious contract would have more serious consequences. Perhaps the scale should be dependent upon the seriousness of the contract, like the "standard of proof" requirement in law. For example, For a matter greater than $20: Notorious to a degree beyond a reasonable doubt (nearly everyone is aware of the implied contract) Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions) Reasonable For a matter of less than $20: Notorious to a degree beyond a preponderance of evidence (most people are aware of the implied contract) Legal (you cannot enter into implied contracts involving illegal transactions) Reasonable

My response has been that "certain" cannot be taken as "100% certain to be followed." If it must be, than I dispute that criteria for an implied contract. When you get into your car you have entered into an "implied contract" with the government that you will follow traffic laws. If you don't want to follow traffic laws than no one is forcing you to drive. The notorious fact that many people run traffic lights does not mean that it is uncertain that people agree to follow traffic laws by getting in their cars. When you enter into a verbal agreement with someone to give them money for services you have entered into a legal contract, which is not implied at all. If someone breaks the agreement it does not mean that the contract was uncertain, merely that one of the parties is a criminal. My claim is that the implied contract to pay the driver for his services is "certain" in that an individual ordering a pizza can be reasonably expected to be aware of it. It is not "certain" to occur because there is a small portion of the population that is filled with serious criminals (1% of the population by some estimates), probably a great many more petty criminals (my guess is that at least 25% percent of the population is a personal subjectivist or "prudent predator"), some immigrants or visitors that are not yet aware that they are expected to pay delivery drivers (16% of the population). This would suggest to me that even if an implied contract is known, at least a quarter of the population will intentionally break it if they can get away with it.