Flippanarchy

we should be making sure no one goes hungry. but the answer to op's question is that the second hypothetical isn't interesting (obviously it's not ethical to hoard bread) and ethical questions are made to spark debate

Is it ethical to make enough food to feed everyone but then throw it away just because of capitalism?

Because ethics don't exist as far as the ones hoarding bread in this scenario are concerned.

And because you following ethics is directly beneficial for them. As long as you act 'ethically', they remain at the top and nothing can be done about it.

The reason is because these questions are often aimed at dirt poor people, not at the rich. The rich are, despite being rich, often the single most stingy, thieving bunch in existence. If you leave a bowl of candy for everyone to take from, a few might take more than their share... but the rich will want to grab massive handfuls.

Because in our (western) society, boldness and greed are universally honored to the point that corporations are generally seen as a means to enrich their owner rather than society as a whole. If you can afford it, and it's not explicitly outlawed, it's ethically right.

This actually highlights an important distinction in meta ethics (ethics about how to determine ethics). There is a divide amongst philosophers of what makes sense in pure analytical logic, and what makes sense in contextual reasoning. This divide is also shown to come up in "continental" vs "English speaking" philosophies. The two approach how to examine not just ethics, but truth overall in very different ways. I personally am of the belief that there needs to be an integration of these two in order for ethics to properly work, but to summarize this already too long Lemmy comment into one idea: fuck hoarding value of any kind.

Is it ethical to hoard land when families would willingly farm that land to grow food for themselves? Same question with housing - I am capable of building a small structure to live in perfectly happily but its illegal. Not a builder so the best I could do would likely just be a bit better than van living, but I could do it if it wasn't illegal.

Systematically answering "Is hoarding bread unethical" with "No" should result in the other questions being irrelevant.

Bread should be free. We already have enough for everyone. No one has to starve anymore, scarcity is a LIE.

Both of these questions sound like a learning aide. You ask these types of questions because they have obvious answers, and you then have students explain their rationale, right?

Because ethics questions love focusing on individual choices, not the systems causing the problem in the first place.

As if 80% of western philosophy was written by well off people who sometimes owned slaves.

It is never unethical to steal food. It is unethical to stop someone from stealing food, or report someone for stealing food, or to arrest someone for stealing food.

Edit: ITT, sociopaths thinking their rationalizations for denying food to people are moral. It is NEVER unethical to steal food, got it? If someone is stealing food, it's because they're hungry, and they can't afford it. If you question that, you're just an asshole.

Because one of these has a clear answer

Because it’s easier to question the desperate than the powerful… flips the whole perspective when you think about it.