That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
You’re not minimising it, you’re continuing it. The only ethical answer is to destroy the state (reduce suffering greatly).