The precise proportions of blame are a difficult thing to decide upon generally - we'd need to definitely and certainly establish intent in each individual case. A few anti-peds are probably so stupid that they honestly do think that what they are doing is helping children. The majority, I think, are just not bothered about children either way: they are purely motivated by the desire to see the vindication of their bigotry, and if that means capitalising on, and twisting the interpretation of, instances of cruelty to children, they'll do that. And some, the very worst, will actively rejoice when children are treated with cruelty - not at the cruelty itself, but because they falsely think it vindicates their POV, and that is literally all they care about.

Also, people who harm children (and I think we need to point out, for the benefit of lurkers and readers, that paedos are one of the least likely to be in this category) are also operating within different mental contexts, and affected to differing degrees by their own diminished moral sense.

To both of the above groups, you then need to layer in the question of mental capability, level of knowledge, psychological state, other contributing factors.

OK. Now let's take an imaginary scenario. In this imaginary case, we have a sexual-sadist. He is in control of his own mind (not mentally incapacitated or deranged) and is able to make his own choices. He knows that he has a strong urge to hurt kids. He also knows that if he seeks help, this will involve revealing his desires and feelings, and he could well end up suffering vigilante action, the destruction of his reputation, even his life. OTOH, he knows that keeping it to himself will allow his feelings to fester and lead to increasing levels of frustration; whilst he is in control, he fears that one day his resolve may break. He should be able to get help without fear; he should be able to feel that his society recognises that a person seeking to resist a bad urge deserves more commendation than a person who is not tempted by that urge in the first place simply because it isn't present within him. But society is not that intelligent, sensitive or perceptive. They act on baser instincts.

So, what should he do, ethically speaking? Surely the answer must be that he should do whatever is necessary to prevent himself from hurting an innocent party. That may involve seeking help despite the consequences. Another option might be to seek out help from those who would not treat him in that way: perhaps from friends; perhaps from genuine child lovers. If he thinks that isn't helping him, he has yet another option: he can do what it takes to disable himself. What that would involve would depend on the person and on the situation.

The more he sacrifices of himself (with, of course, justification), combined with the more difficult his situation is (from the nature of it itself, and from the level of difficulty imposed by society and/or other individuals), the more moral commendation he deserves. And the less others help him, or the more they hinder him (and all of this within the additional context of his and their motivations, background and intentions) the more they deserve reprobation. But the bottom line is: he must do - morally he must do - whatever is required to prevent the harming of an innocent, unconnected, party. They have the absolute right not to be harmed - a right which must under no circumstances be over-ridden by his rights. That must be an absolute given.

Is there unfairness here? Yes. To start with, it's unfair that some people have more urges they must fight and others have more urges which are beneficial. There's a bucketload of unfairnesses. But the more unfairnesses that one has to deal with in order to act rightly, the higher the level of commendation (**it helps to see it from the positive angle**).

To return to the question of proportions of blame. I think the best way to put it might be like this: if the society deals with such individuals negatively when they seek help, and he decides to take the easiest route of acting on his harmful urges, then both he and the society are up for judgement. The proportionality of blameworthiness depends on a vast array of factors (he may, for example, have diminished responsibility due to mental factors. OTOH, he may just be a vicious sadist who acted that way out of pure desire and lack of moral compunction; maybe he'd have acted that way regardless of the kind of societal approach). Again, on the other hand, looking at it *positively*, he deserves genuine commendation when he acts rightly despite all that society can throw at him.

And I'll finish by stressing that this *is* what he *must* do; if he is clinically insane, it doesn't make any sense to start talking about him as a sane moral actor. (Others must then act for him). But to the merest degree that he is able, his social and moral duty is to fight his urges to his last breath. Perhaps literally, if that's what it takes. The right of the child to life and to be unharmed is absolute and untouchable.