I have a slightly different philosophy.

I don't make a conscious choice to take action that will cause a stranger's death (even if more people die because I didn't take action) with exceptions for my monkeysphere. In the case of the worst enemy one, I didn't hesitate to run them over. In the case of self preservation, I chose to save myself. In the case of my best friend, other people are gonna die. Etc.

It makes a lot of these pretty easy and a few (like first cousin vs 3rd cousins) a matter of happenstance, just like the happenstance that I was looking at these absurd trolley problems.

But why isn't NOT pulling the lever "taking action"?

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" - Morpheus, The Matrix

I'm curious how far you're willing to take that, e.g. if instead of a couple people on a track it was "press the button to confirm destroying the bomber and pilot or let the nuke drop on NYC due to lack of confirmation" counts?

That’s the eternal question :-)

Allow me a dodge: I think that I’d probably press the button, but that it’s strictly wrong for me to do so. Chalk it up to weakness.

What if the switch is a hair-trigger movement sensor, so you must stand very still not to trigger it?

Which one is "inaction" now, purposefully standing very still, or acting as you would have otherwise?

That completely changes the question because it gives you obvious deniability, whereas the lever probably does not. Especially if witnessed.

That matters legally (accidental death) versus intent (mens rea, murder).

It also matters socially, because you can deny that you made any choice even though you may have chosen (assuming you only do it once). You can even deny it to yourself.

It does beg the question: who set the trolley up to kill people, and why did you happen to be standing on the trigger?

It may have legal and social differences, but (imo) it should not have moral differences. Either way, there are two outcomes and you're picking one.

I'm just trying to poke at the gp's idea (paraphrasing) that inaction is morally blameless.

I think inaction refers to intent, not the way the wind blows. In the case of the hair trigger, I’d be morally obligated to stand very still, but it wouldn’t be particularly blameworthy if I happened to falter. This is in contrast to the normal switch, where I’d be to blame if I pulled it.

I tend to feel that is the general answer, but that at some (arbitrary) level of absurd disparity of outcome, it becomes morally imperative to act.

Like that 5-to-1 standard trolley problem is a hard question for me to answer, and on different days, I pick different answers. Probably "do nothing" most days. But if you made it 50,000,000-to-1, it is not a hard problem any more. Somewhere in between those two is "the line" where the fact that you are becoming a murderer is outweighed by the value of the life you saved.

Yes, if I could be certain that I could save 50,000,000 lives by murdering someone, I think it would be a moral imperative to do so. That wouldn't change the moral evil of murder, it just outweighs it.

I think. Don't ask what I'd do "in real life", I won't know until it happens (which I pray it will not)