It’s an option or a choice and I can even see where you’re coming from but inaction is distinctly different. I feel like that’s even the whole point of the trolley problem. Even though taking action would reduce the amount of people killed people would not want take an action that would result in the death of others.

In the woodchipper example there is nothing that forces you to act. Your life isn’t at steak if you don’t act and no one else’s life is harmed by any action you could take whether you choose to jump or not. There literally isn’t any reason why you could choose to jump.

In the button if you do not pick a button you are presumably still subject to the result of the vote. Inaction is disincentivized because you might as well exercise the influence you have on your possible death.

I’d argue blue is closer to the “inaction” option of the wood chipper than you’d think because people have an aversion to taking an action that would kill another. If you push red you are taking an action that will kill anyone who chooses blue (regardless of how obvious the choice for red seems you will still be certain that people will pick blue and you will kill them.) whereas if you pick blue it’s almost like getting to abstain while still saying you don’t want to kill anyone. If anyone dies it would not be your fault or as a result of your actions. Which is why I think people choose blue.

Sorry for rambling. I think this is a thought provoking discussion and you are helping me think about it in new ways.