Call it what you will.
Hmm. Well, in your first example, while the person may be dying of hunger which is a perfectly legitimate reason to steal, they are still in fact stealing, regardless of circumstance. I view morality and justification as two separate entities rather than in a position in which one must be complementary of the other. You seem to be saying that circumstance in turn reflects what we call the action, and to a certain extend I agree. If someone attempts to mug you in a dark alley and you in response by shooting them in an act of self-defense, and that person later dies as a result of that, that's a perfectly justifiable reason for doing so and I don't think you should be punished for that, yet despite how you justify it you did in fact kill someone. You seem to have the misconception that I'm viewing this all in a linear fashion that if by acting immorally you should be punished regardless of circumstance, which isn't true at all. I'm just saying that doesn't in turn change the actions from what they are.
As far as the second one goes, other options exist, they would just produce a result which is than optimal or ideal. You're implying the lack of other options, which I don't agree with.
The second example I gave in response to Chana is more of a Robin Hood principle and has nothing to do survival stealing.
Actions aren't immoral, intentions are. This is where you and I disagree, and apparently will continue to disagree.
It's why I can't follow Christianity or any other religion where it's all like, "okay here are the ten commandments, it's always wrong to lie, to steal, and to be gay." I can't even wrap my head around that kind of thinking.
It strikes me as Fe because it appears above and beyond to be about simplistic social control, and indeed, social control can create a harmonious society if everyone treats one another fairly, in an ideal world.
On the other hand, I think there's a great deal of room for cruelty, and for what I personally consider immoral behavior, in that sort of moral absolutism.
For example, the old lady who believes that sex before marriage is always wrong and throws her daughter out into the street for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, the daughter panics and commits suicide. The mother still feels morally justified in what she did, and then blames the daughter for acting in further immorality by committing suicide.
In my opinion, the mother is the entity of heinous evil, not the daughter.
Also, the idea of being a "martyr," people who suffer and die because they refuse to break a commandment. Oh please, give me a break. I can't get with that either, and it's unsurprising to me that martyrdom is most frequently associated with IxFJs (Fe).
I'm not saying this absolutely is an Fi vs. Fe conflict, but it seems like it. I could be wrong.
Either way, we shall have to agree to disagree.