Hypothetically, if 95% of a country was 'evil', does that excuse killing the nice 5%?
Further, as an American I recognize America historically committed genocide, that does not mean everyone in that time period was evil.
(1) Historically a commonly accepted definition of 'evil'.
PS: I am in no way supporting the horrors humanity has produced. Just commenting on how easy it is to apply labels and then by your own words kill millions of innocent people.
Herein population can be understood to mean any group of people from a small band of individuals up to the population of a continent.
This isn't morally reasonable because I would in fact probably sacrifice any number of people who are not close to me for those that are however I tend to think that the majority would make the same decision. This is why having individuals make such life and death decisions would probably be a bad idea.
I don't think I could reasonably on the other hand punish the guilty 1% and also the innocent 99%. I guess everyone probably has a line but I don't know if you can ethically define and what point it becomes right or wrong because I don't think most people consider even the mundane choices they make logically.
I think most such choices are actually made emotionally.
I would go so far as to suggest most choices are made emotionally. Brand advertising and propaganda are used because they work.
Also, I must complement you for honesty, and I think most people share your views. I can only comment that very rarely is a population a meaningful direct threat rather than at worst a dangerous tool, but those terms will be banded about to leverage our natural responses.