@marylindelgado @hphilosopher @philosophy @Nazishmunch @jonasblatter @nowan @contessa
Sorry that it took me so long. I had to think about what you said and also had a big workload at the university and in other projects.

1/

First a small summary:
We discussed the case of whether some people who do the same but have different starting points could be blamed in the same way. A had progressive parents who taught them that all genders are equal while B had parents who taught them the opposite. Both joined a party with the goal to restore the “natural order” in which cis-men should dominate all other genders.

2/

I agree that there are many other factors. Both have the chance to learn and that they should do this is clear. Also it seems clear to me that nobody should have to deny their rights because others did not have the chance to properly learn how to treat others well.. What A and B do is clearly harmful and both should be blamed.

3/

What makes me think more about this case is what @marylindelgado has written here:
"A sensible decision depends namely on our ability to epistemically contrast our beliefs. "

Because I think this is the relevant difference between A and B. I would say that A had much better training in doing that. (I call these ethical competences in my PhD thesis.) While B has had almost no training in it. Maybe we could also say that their ethical literacy is different?

4/

What follows from this? I think it is odd to say that nothing follows. That we should just say that both did the same because it had the same consequences and harms non cis men in the same way. This seems too simple for me. I want to hold A much more responsible for what they did. A should have known better. A had every chance in their previous life to develop these ethical competences.

5/