People disagree to the degree killing cows is OK. But, both sides can be consistent based around what lives matter. Classify Group X say Murders, Outlaws, Nazi's, white people, or even humans outside the tribe in the killing allowed category and everything can stay consistent.

Except it's not consistent with basic facts, like the fact that the differences between any group of humans is non-existent. There's also a Kantian argument to be made that killing period, is inherently logically inconsistent.

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. Now placing any real value on having a SSN ending in 7 may seem meaningless, but the difference exists.

PS: It could even be useful as a means of load balancing.

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.

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.

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.

If you do pure random assignment then having a 7 at the end of your SSN could make a difference. EX: We rolled a 10 sided die an a 7 came up. On the other hand if you want to maximizing the number of people saved other things may be considered (Age, weight, vision etc).

I am not going to say a specific system is the only correct one in that case, but rather many of the differences you suggest are meaningless could suddenly become meaningful differentiation in a moral system. Further, those differences are not necessarily inherently important outside of that specific system and situation.