(Understanding there are way more than just two base types and exceptions will be present, and understanding that most folks will fight the hypo to avoid making a choice).
1. Utilitarians who once all of the hypo fighting is done will choose ordinarily to kill the one to save the five. Tied to this is a belief that inaction is still action, thus you are morally responsible once you have control of the trolley whether you act or don't act. These are folks who believe that at least sometimes the ends do justify the means.
2. People who believe it is actions that matter and thus any action that causes evil is evil (i.e. the ends never justify the means). Killing one person is evil, even if you save five people to do it. You weren't responsible for the trolley being on the path it is, but if you act, now you are responsible for killing the one person.
And of course when you change the facts of the trolley problem into the removing the organs of one person to save the lives of five people, everyone seems to say no, even those who are in group 1. Logically, there's not much of a difference, but if feels different emotionally and ethically.
And of course, if that one person is a loved one, most people are not going to pull that lever. Which shows the limitations of ethics.
= new reply since forum marked as read