This line of reasoning is extremely flawed, as you are assuming that each human reaches a stage where they can make a informed decision about their personal morals. As it happens though, most people never reach this stage, in part because it is considered an unacceptable topic to talk about faith, morality and politics in most settings. The other issue is the good old nature vs. nuture debate and modern science has found strong evidence that the tendency of a persons morals is very much dictated by nature.
Furthermore, as you keep bringing up hypothetically sapient AIs, in my professional experience, any kind of thinking apparatus is very much constrained by it's underlying infrastructure, but a human-like intelligence would automatically imply the ability to reason and make judgments autonomously. Without this ability, you have no true sapience, just a clever Construct that is bound solely by it's premade, mental structure.
Therefore, you either assume that Outsiders start as sub-sapient, or they start on the same level as a human. The existence or lack of prior experience certainly has an impact on the complexity and nature of a beings thoughts, but the fundamental part is if it is capable of having them in the first place.
