Which comes first? Or is that an invalid question? I came upon the question in an obtuse manner. A week or so ago, I was in a major train station, in the food court. On purchasing some food, I was informed that I had to pay electronically. Not a major bother, but noteworthy. The first place had the system to add a tip, which I did. Before leaving, I went to another booth; paying electronically, but this place didn’t allow tipping (not even a jar).
I’ve been to Europe and Asia where tipping isn’t encouraged, but they make allowances for ignorant Americans. So, I wondered two things: were these business operations paying the line employees decently; and who is skimming the transaction fees from the electronic payment?
Fast forward to this morning. I stopped at a non-chain coffee shop. Paid cash, put the change into a jar. Two scenarios, both dealing with simple business transactions, using the de facto coin of the realm, guaranteed by the State. This is where I drifted into my post title.
It may not be philosophy v. law, per se. Now, ethics v. law might be more accurate (and if you’re aware of anything about either of these two, you know damn well how dissimilar they can be).
Maybe I should have titled this; tipping vs non-tipping.
Rants Unto the Ether 