I fail to see why you refuse to use words as defined and commonly used Existentialist, the reason we give these labels specific definitions is to make communication more coherent, using words in ways in which they are not defined and/or commonly used is to make communication much more ineffective than the norm. This very conversation is evidence of that, due to your refusal to use the word bribery as defined we first have to settle conceptual disharmony before we can discuss the actual issue.
As a bribe is defined specifically as an illegal incentive, bribery is therefore necessarily illegal.
To state otherwise is to engage in several fallacies at once, namely the law of non-contradiction, which is the foundation of such tautologies.
What you should be using as opposed to bribe is "unethical incentive". In doing so I assure you than rather wasting our time discussing the definition of bribery we will be able to actually discuss whether or not this incentive is unethical.
As a bribe is defined specifically as an illegal incentive, bribery is therefore necessarily illegal.
To state otherwise is to engage in several fallacies at once, namely the law of non-contradiction, which is the foundation of such tautologies.
What you should be using as opposed to bribe is "unethical incentive". In doing so I assure you than rather wasting our time discussing the definition of bribery we will be able to actually discuss whether or not this incentive is unethical.
.
