The Western world which I was talking about.
> some will have spent more effort, in the tools (general Intelligence) and in the work (applied Intelligence), some less.
The problem with your belief system is that it's not falsifiable. If someone commits atrocities (according to your own ethical standard) then that's just proof that they're not intelligent or they haven't applied their intelligence.
> There exist reasons supporting one side or the other.
Those reasons are subjective, i.e. arbitrary. Morality is inherently subjective, by definition.
Your claims that morality is somehow objective are as silly as claiming that some music is objectively better than another, or that some food tastes objectively better than another.
> Whoever went for suboptimal choices was at fault with respect to optimal reasoning
Back to circular reasoning which I specifically asked you to avoid. For the sake of the argument, who are you to say that those choices were suboptimal?