[extropy-chat] defending life?

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> > I would prefer that "innocent" be applied to
> entities capable of
> > moral actions.  A table is not innocent.  An
> amoeba is not innocent.
> >And an embryo is not innocent.  None of these are
> moral actors.  None
> of
> > them are such that we can make moral judgements
> about their actions.
> 
> A sociopath is therefore not a moral actor?

Legally, no.  True sociopaths, completely unable to
judge morality, are legally insane, and are given the
same degree of rights as animals (i.e., none) since
they are judged to have lost the use of human mental
capability.  Usually, attempts are made to restore
said capability, but until it has been restored...

I believe Hal was applying a similar argument to the
term "innocent" in general: only a human being capable
of deciding right from wrong is innocent, and should
be afforded the protections we accord to innocents.
Sociopaths and newborns are two examples of human
beings outside of this class.