A question on morality:

Amoral. Those two people worked hard for their food and deserve every ounce of it. The starving should get to work and stop moaning

For me it depends on other factors, but it does sound logical, if not moral.
But I'm going to follow the four main ethical principles to answer that: first would be autonomy- if I force them to do anything I would be ignoring this one, therefore I'm being immoral. Then nonmaleficence- if they have a surplus I'm pretty certain I'm doing them no harm, but what if they have it because they're stocking up for the future, what if they know that they will go hungry in the future so now they're trying to gather as much as possible? For the question of beneficence- yes I'm doing good to a million starving people. And lastly we have justice and it's safe to say that the fair thing to do is to give food to millions of starving people.
So in a way it would be quite moral but not completely.

It would be very fair and tempting to do so, but perhaps not morally right, because it basically amounts to stealing. Kind of like Robin Hood -- stealing from the rich to give to the poor, which sounds like justice. But robbery, regardless of who you do it to, is still just robbery.

Not sure if just two people would have so much surplus to fed so many others, but they could certainly off it to their elderly neighbours or families who are struggling.
But all these million/billionaires could.

Forcing implies power, and inevitably will be misused. So, no. Helping is good for the soul but I always wonder what systemic reasons persist causing such. It’s hard to get further than corruption.

If two people were hoarding enough food to feed a million people, it probably would be the right thing to do to pressure them into handing over the food to feed those that need it.

Ask spock

As long as it would take 2 people to amass that amount of food suggests the hoarders are old enough that they most probably wouldn't live long enough to consume it all. Wasting food within reach of starving people is amoral

Morality can't be enforced.
Whatever response is forcibly extracted is immoral.

Instead, Be Robinhood to do the needful.

But that's.. that's.. 😨 that's s*******m!!111!1! 😱😱😱

That would be an incredible surplus if two people had enough to feed a million others.

The government has done similar things, but generally they would somehow compensate the people for the food.

I don't believe in absolute moral frameworks but by most systems of morality it would be moral.

I'm sure libertarian trash will eventually show up and share with us why it would be wrong

Is two people have such a surplus as to feed a million starving people and still eat themselves than the answer is it is absolutely moral.