Soldiers life threatened by his own side.

[liam]

This bit starts with the assumption that you have accurately defined what does or does not deserve considerations of morality and that your metrics for determining this are accurate. It also falls flat on its face when this assumption is questioned. You have decided which set of things belong in your "deserves consideration" camp, and as far as your own opinions are concerned this is entirely acceptable, but perhaps Apo would like to include the bacteria as well?

Yet bacteria do not perform any function that makes it considerable? it reproduces, yes, and surely it is technically 'alive'. However, surely the moral right is derived from life in the sense that there is thought, as this to me seem to be the only real qualifier for life beyond simple processes of biology, of which the most basic and unthinking 'life-form' is possessed. Furthermore, to consider bacteria a morally considerable entity, it would be impossible to even exist as the immune system kills millions of bacteria from the body without the individual being aware of it. Thus to exist would be immoral, yet to remove oneself from existence is also immoral as this would kill bacteria, thus the ascription of this consideration to bacteria is completely illogical. However, I'm more than happy to concede bacteria to the realm if you can prove they are thinking beings

Then, if my answer is wrong, how would you define what is morally considerable? Or perhaps what would you prefer to use to determine this? Open to suggestion