And one last thing - you’re mixing two questions into one. The question of (in)action consequences, and the question of comparing values like lives, that are NaN by definition.

This alone makes the morality dispute problematic. Let me suggest another scenario for your morality test. You had five people on the tracks, one in a runaway accelerating train, and have a choice of switching to an alternate track and/or triggering the brakes (for which you KNOW it will late for the people on the track or to stop the train from falling in to the abyss). Thus choices would be a) flip switch so train goes into an abyss, the people on the tracks live, b) hit the brakes, person on the train lives, or c) do nothing and everybody dies.

Surely letting everybody die is not less an affront to humanity than the other two choices ?