In a recent column, Ketil Raknes examines the influence of powerful figures, specifically analyzing Jeffrey Epstein's emails to illustrate how flattery, exclusivity, and access can manipulate individuals. He critiques the pervasive influence of these dynamics, which can often overshadow personal accountability and ethical decisions. However, he raises a contentious question: 'Would we have behaved differently?' This inquiry shifts the focus from the manipulation itself to the competence of the manipulated and suggests a troubling normalization of complicity in the face of corrupting power.

Raknes highlights that while Epstein was a convicted sexual offender, the analysis predominantly frames personal behavior within the context of external influences rather than direct moral responsibility. This perspective can dilute the critical examination of such influences, making the inquiry into personal accountability feel secondary or insufficient. The implication is that focusing on the nuances of power manipulation may inadvertently excuse or downplay the severity of the ethical breaches involved.

Cecilia Dinardi, a lawyer experienced in criminal law, child welfare law, and children's rights, underscores that the issue here is not merely about recognizing manipulation but also about ensuring that accountability does not get lost. Circumstantial factors should not overshadow the need for moral agency. The fundamental concern raised by Raknes' question lies in its potential to excuse the bystanders and those involved in the power dynamics, prompting a necessary dialogue on ethics and responsibility in such contexts.