The question is inherently asking whether you should interfere to save the most people and still end with the death of one, or if you should what will happen just happen. It is also asking if you should react the same in both scenarios or if you can change your decision to one compared to the other. Reacting to the two scenarios as a utilitarian or deontologist can end in two different results.

Utilitarianism is to do what will help the most people, to act to maximize the sum total of happiness and minimize the sum total of pain. If someone were a utilitarianist in both scenarios, they would have to pull the lever and push the man. This would have to be the action to both because in pulling the lever only one workman would be killed rather than killing five workmen; and I would have to push the man because only that man would die rather than the five men further down the track. Both outcomes minimize the sum total of pain and maximize the sum total of happiness. Someone can argue that by killing one man in each, you are still killing a person, or what if they have a family. By killing one man in each, you are killing that one man and his family may suffer; if someone chose not to interfere, then you would kill five men and all of their families would suffer. The outcome of choosing to interfere is that you have less people in pain.

Deontology would be the complete opposite in both scenarios. Deontologists would argue that you can not interfere because you are making the decision for the trolley driver or those people. If someone were to pull the lever or push the man, they would be taking away the free-will and rationale of others to choose what to do, but they would also be taking away the right for the trolley driver to choose whether or not he should pull the lever or find a way to derail his trolley. An argument against this theory would be that the trolley driver may not be able to pull a lever or derail a train, and although both arguments are correct, if someone chose to do both then it takes away the chance for someone else to make the choice to do so.

I believe that I would take the route of the utilitarians. I would pull the lever and push the man, because both end with the lesser amount of deaths than choosing to let it happen would. Although in both scenarios I would be behind the killing of a man, I would be able to live with the fact that I killed a man to save five. I would not be able to live with myself if five men died and I was able to prevent it from happening.