If person A is drowning, and person B refuses to save him, I'm not the kind of person who will say this should be legally punishable. B might be scared, or he might not know how to swim, or he might not want to endanger his own life for that of A, etc. But what I am saying is that the sentence "it is immoral not to do X" has meaning. Within reason, I may pass moral judgement on a person who doesn't do certain things. Those things won't include not helping starving kids, but they might include not doing anything to change the states of affairs that allow things such as starving children to exist.
Your examples about physical properties apply to physical objects. A woman who complains that her husband doesn't sweet-talk to her, is complaining about something that is quite present, and that's his indifference. A husband who says "lack of tenderness cannot be a bag thing, it's an absence of something, not a presence of something, and as such it can at most be called neutral", will merely add to her list of grievances. Just as cowardice is often lack of action, similarly immorality can be due to a lack of action.
What you're describing is a preference for positive action. I'm sure most people would share that preference but it shouldn't be confused with morality.
The absence of sweet talking is the same. The woman has a preference for sweet talk but its absence cannot be said to be immoral.
Cowardice isn't immoral either. It's a word used to indicate one's subjective preference for action where there is none.
Well okay, at least you're 'biting the bullet', in the sense that your intuitions about the examples I gave are in line with your opinions about what can and can't be moral. And that's what extreme hypotheticals are all about!
But just a last one cos I can't help it! : A mother who gives birth to a child, but refuses to nurture it, hears its cries but refuses to move a toe, is - all other things being equal - not morally bad, to you, just morally neutral?
Above you said something about having the duty to be a provider for your daughter, so maybe that might relate to this.
I'm glad you brought this one up. Most anarcho-capitalists revere the writings of Murray Rothbard and he argued that it was morally acceptable to leave the child to die... but I disagree with him. Rothbard neglected to consider the responsibility that parents incur when conceiving a child. One could use the analogy of a house. Having sex could be thought of as "inviting a child into existence" the way one might invite someone into their home. Once the guest has arrived, you're responsible for its well-being until it leaves. In the case of a newborn child, it's in a state of complete dependency so you might think of it as your house guest that was injured and rendered unable to walk or take care of itself. As long as that helpless guest is in your home and in a state of dependency, you're obliged to take care of it until it can get up and leave on its own.
Acknowledged.