When I asked who was at most fault - the person who offers the bribe or the person who accepts - a good chunk answered "the person who offers."
can you explain to me your reasoning for this? In my opinion it's very obviously the person who accepts.
Conversation
Replying to
A. Cannot accept a bribe that is not there. B. Unless you are seeking bribes to accept, in which case you hold more fault. C. The Offerer is the one seeking undue influence and benefit by skirting the proper system.
1
3
Replying to
but the person 'getting' bribed is the one responsible for the position they hold.
1
7
Show replies
Replying to
For me, in a bribe situation I see 2 scenarios: 1) Person A asks for the bribe, person B offers the bribe, person A accepts; 2) B spontaneously offers to bribe and A accepts. In both cases, whoever iniciated the bribe has more fault, but they're different people...
1
Replying to
Neither is at fault because there's no such thing as free will. But we have to pretend the offerer is at fault because doing so deterministically reduces the number of offered bribes (and therefore accepted bribes) more than simply holding the accepter accountable would.
1
Replying to
Because the offerer has apparently actively sought out the weakness (namely the type and form of the bribe) of the person who will accept.
Though surely there's personal responsibility of the accepting party, it is still his weakness.
Replying to
Because the person who offers the bribe knows they can extort someone's need for money to get out of the offending situation, personally they're both just as bad as each other, but that wasn't an available answer
Replying to
The thing most at fault is a system which allows and encourages citizens to bribe officers of the law. I would argue that the cops which take the bribes and the citizens which give them are victims of that system.