The problem with that style of analytics @ekklesiagora is it doesn't identify root causes. The problems you see on the surface are symptoms of a separate cause, which often has an underlying cause beneath it. The root cause of suffering that can be controlled is aggression. All other causes of suffering are tied to chance, personal decisions, etc. and can be mitigated via voluntary action or via exercising one's own liberty.
The other problem that I see is you have conflated morality with ethics, and you have admitted as much. The distinction does exist. It is hardly useless, and definitely not fictitious.
Ethics is external and objective, while morality is internal and subjective. Or, to put it as my friend @twok would:
Ethics stem from the objective and reciprocal claims to self and property ownership.
Morals stem from the subjective value judgements of self and property worth.
This is why something can be immoral to an individual and yet ethical in the eyes of society, and something can be unethical to society, and yet moral to an individual. What you described is a case of something being unethical (theft) and yet moral to you(feeding starving children). To the person you stole from, it may be neither moral or ethical, or it may be the same view as you, but it doesn't change the fact you would be violating the ethical standard by stealing.
In order for any ethical standard to work with consistency, it must be an objective concept. It cannot be subjective to individual interpretation. To use the libertarian NAP, the principle implies that aggression (the initiation of using force upon another, without consent) causes the most harm, ergo to reduce harm to everyone, aggression must not be permissible. By objectively removing the permissibly of aggression, you objectively reduce the harm done to others.
The mathematical failings of all "subjective ethics" arguments
By conflating morality, your own internal subjective code of conduct, with ethics (an external & objective code of conduct), you are able to claim all immoral acts (to you) are inherently unethical. This makes your subjective interpretation the only one that can be applied, at least for you. Besides this being semantically false (as all individuals have a separate subjective interpretation of reality), the interpretation you have has a 1:7billion chance of aligning with any single individual, specifically.
To make a single, subjectively derived ethical standard apply willingly across all individuals, in all societies, would be a computational explosion problem. Lets look at some combinatorial mathematics to find out why:
There are 7 billion people who could say yes, or no, to any ethical standard you propose. That's 2^7,000,000,000 possible combinations that need consideration here. Even if we could process a trillion combinations per second (for reference, we can do now maybe a third of that now with the absolute top end processors from last year), a calculation of 2^100 would take 40 billion years to list all the potential combinations out. From there you would need to analyse why the no's were given, and then reprocess the results with the new model to fit their needs, presuming one fix is required.
40 billion years is about 3 times the time we estimate the universe has existed so far, and that is just to work out all the possible binary combinations across 100 cases, just to see what could exist. We are dealing with 7 billion binary combinations, here. Do you honestly think a single solution, which is not innately and infinitely flexible (like anarchy), will objectively work when you are multiplying the combination factor by by 70 million? The maths make it so unfeasible that even if you turned all the matter in the universe into a computer, and used the lifespan of the universe itself to calculate the problem, it would be nowhere near determining a result.
These combinatorial failures are why any centralised or single implementation solution is doomed to be problematic for someone in society. Only with anarchy is it possible to have a multitude of implementation strategies that prevent aggression and harm in society, without having any single entity controlling the system in play. These failures are also why the concepts of intersectionality & social justice impossible to implement, as there are far more than 100 possible combinations of groupings for people within society that could have meaning.
RE: AnCap NAP Ethics is Morally Bankrupt & Based on Arbitrary Aggression Against Non-Aggressors