Honestly speaking, I don't think you have any idea what you would do in that situation unless you actually experience it; empathy can only go so far.
Wow, no kidding. If you're stealing the bread from another starving family, I get you, but in a situation where the consequences aren't balanced; i.e., you don't steal the bread your family dies, you do steal the bread and a large multinational loses out on a couple of bucks; you'd be an idiot not to take it.
What you are describing are your values -- I reckon, if you were the owner, you would give the bread, and I would too.
The problem with your argument is that by applying this to stealing, you are, in that case, forcing your values on someone else. It might be obvious to you that the family should be saved, but you know what, maybe the owner has different values than you. Why should he do what your values want him to do? He should do what his values tell him to do, not yours.
Do I think the owner should give me the bread? Yeah. But it's not for me to decide if it's not mine.
In theory it's great, in practice it depends. In any case every time we interact with each other we make allowances, so I'm not sure I buy into this sort of morality by means of subjecting others to your values. A sort of pacifist approach that assigns inaction a neutral value... I can see that argument but don't agree with it myself ;)
It's been a while since philosophy 101 (where you get a lot of different views) but Kant's greatest good for the greatest number seems to make sense. By taking the bread you cause perhaps even negligible harm to prevent (cause less) suffering/death... that sort of thing.
pawn to E4