How ought I to judge my peers, given the upbringing they've had?

I have a very hard time thinking about moral responsibility for character when contemplating my peers. I know that we are ultimately responsible for our actions and our character, but I do know that character and temperament are also heavily influenced by the culture one is born into and the kind of upbringing and education one receives. Now, I was raised roughly the same way as my peers, and went through the same standardised, state-school education system. And yet I did not end up like them - due, in no small part of course, to the fact that I read Atlas Shrugged. I had an alternative to the ideas offered to me to turn to, which they did not -- I mean, it was really an accident that I stumbled upon the book. I could have ended up just like anyone else.

So, the problem I have is in judging these people, this conflict between wanting to say that they ought to have known better, but then the realisation: who or what else could they have turned to? My general stance has been to say that one does not have to have a real objection if one wants to reject an idea which one cannot honestly agree with, and that my peers ought to have, like me, simply held a certain scepticism like me. And yet one cannot live a life of scepticism. Again, perhaps with a good education one would have the resources to turn to formulate a better philosophy for oneself, but that is precisely what these kids don't have.

In the end, I try to treat them like Hank does the Wet Nurse: to not take the bad ideas they hold seriously, to show a benevolent warmth to them and to make a kind joke (rather than a spiteful or mean one) at certain philosophical attitudes they might express, and to not focus too hard on negatively judging their characters. But am I doing right, or should I really be harsher in my judgement and treatment of them?