Hello Rabbi, and thank you very much. What do you mean by weighing what is important?
And regarding your point that if the Torah value is correct then the opposing moral value is nullified, I understood that to be the very question itself. That is—why cling to something less certain when it cancels out a value that is more certain, and claims that this value is nullified in such-and-such a case?

Suppose you were completely certain that it is worthwhile to make money, and morality says that stealing is forbidden. So would you steal? Or say that health is more important than money. Now they offer you a role in a cigarette commercial in which you would have to smoke several cigarettes, and you would get a million dollars. What would you do? Alternatively, they offer you a lottery ticket that costs 10 shekels, and in the lottery they are offering you there is a 90% chance of winning a million dollars. Wouldn’t you buy it just because the price is certain and the profit is not?
What it means that the value is nullified is this: if the Torah says that one must kill an Amalekite infant and morality forbids it—and let us assume morality is more certain—still, on the possibility that I was commanded to kill him (let us say with 80% certainty), there is no moral problem, because it is overridden by the command (the Torah itself told you to ignore it). By contrast, the moral command not to kill him (let us say with 90% certainty), even if it is correct, the religious command to kill him still stands against it. Therefore this is not 80% versus 90%, but rather 80 versus 20.