You know that story about the train heading toward five people who will be killed and whether to pull a switch that will send the train along another track and only kill one person? "Normal" people have no problem pulling the switch but only sociopaths would push a fat man down onto the track to stop the train. Same number of people saved and killed but different method. My question is why does the questioner assume that everyone would want to intervene in the situation(s) in any way? How do we know the one person being sacrificed isn't more intelligent or better in some other way than the five being saved? I don't know why I should feel obligated to "play god" with these folks. Anyone else?
Personally, I think you're over-analyzing the situation. The objective is whether or not to let the train kill five people. Assuming everyone involved are strangers, you wouldn't have time to decide who is more important to save.
I have no problem pushing a fat man off a bridge to stop a train (assuming that was possible), but I also have no problem letting the train kill 5 people. The only thing that matters to me is how my decision will reflect on me in the end.
Who cares if the fat man is more intelligent than the 5 people. If it looks better on me to kill him rather than letting a train kill 5 people, then I'll kill the fat man each and every time.