> That's clearly a false assumption. As long as I can identify a group say people who's social security numbers end in 7 then their exists a difference between them and all other groups.

That's not a difference, that's an arbitrary classification that has no moral implications.

A meaningful difference with moral implications would be something like one race being superior to another, as the Nazis believed, or some bloodlines being divinely selected, as the Royal family of England once believed. This enables you to argue that one class of people is bound to a different set of moral prescriptions than another.

When arguing that one group of people have different moral prescriptions, then you are implicitly asserting that there is some objective, factual difference between these groups that entails this conclusion. Such differences don't actually exist, ergo, there is no justification for treating them any differently.

You said different with zero qualifications. Paint colors are different, but that does not imply a moral difference.

Now, assigning meaning to differences is by definition part of a specific moral framework and does not generalize.

To a theoretical "hyper intelligent" 207 dimensional being we may not qualify as sentient. After-all, anything bound by something as meaningless as time is incapable of making decisions and will always respond the same to given stimuli at specific points of space-time. Such linear beings don't actually feel things they simply respond to stimuli much like plants.

AKA Same facts, different interpretation = different moral framework.

PS: Do we save women and children first, or are young warriors more important to long term survival? Same 'fact' different interpretation of that fact.

> You said different with zero qualifications.

That's right. The "difference" you pointed out is not a difference of the people themselves, it's a difference in classification in a completely separate system from the people.