Sniper – well-thought-out answer. Very Kantian / deontological. But I still disagree.
Let’s suppose the question were, “Would you kill 100 innocent people to save 3000?”, in which the 100 won’t die in the killing of the 3000. I, personally, would do it. Utilitarian, not deontological. If my mom or dad were among the 100, obviously I would be very upset, but I think I would do it and I think they would support that decision. I would feel I have a duty to do so to save the greater number of people.
But would I kill 100 people to save 101? Probably not. To save 200? I’d probably kill 100 to save 200 if there would be no consequences to myself – it would be the better moral choice. But if I would go to jail for killing 100 people to save 200, I would probably choose self-preservation over doing the right thing. To save 3000, I would do it even if I was sacrificing my own freedom and/or life.
Bombing civillians to end WW2? If I thought I was saving more lives than I was ending. (This is assuming I’m giving the orders, so I have a choice.) It’s interesting how killing massive numbers of civillians by firebombing residential areas was considered acceptable warfare less than 60 years ago – such respected men as Churchill and FDR ordered it – and it’s considered an unspeakable atrocity now.