Don't you need empathy to act on idea that 100 deaths are worse than one? If we are guided by amorality, it could be found that any of those deaths are fine for a variety of circumstances. That one COULD be considered worse than 100 if acting without empathy.
The best example is the President. If there was threats of a nuke on the US, where would the President be? Immediately in the air or in a bunker. Where would the populace of the targeted city be? Fend for themselves. Why? You could argue it's due to an amoral view that it is vital to have consistent leadership voice in a time of crisis. Or you can argue it's that the President is tied to the empathy of all the citizens as a symbol of patriotism and strength.
__________________
|