Again, this has already happened in the American Civil War. In your example the issue would be resolved or the country should fracture.
Also, would the reverse scenario (40% deciding to kill the 60% majority) be more optimal? No, it wouldn't. Assuming people have to die, it would be more optimal for the 40% to die than the 60%. Obviously if this was actually happening a moderate stance would emerge and they (being the majority likely) would decide there shouldn't be any death at all and that would win out.
Your examples are ridiculous and make having a meaningful discussion difficult. A good example, if you can think of one, is one where the minority is right and the majority is wrong without stating the majority is somehow worse than the minority.
Also, would the reverse scenario (40% deciding to kill the 60% majority) be more optimal? No, it wouldn't. Assuming people have to die, it would be more optimal for the 40% to die than the 60%. Obviously if this was actually happening a moderate stance would emerge and they (being the majority likely) would decide there shouldn't be any death at all and that would win out.
Your examples are ridiculous and make having a meaningful discussion difficult. A good example, if you can think of one, is one where the minority is right and the majority is wrong without stating the majority is somehow worse than the minority.