Please pardon my wordings (a big hurdle for a non-native english speaker)
My short knowledge recognizes Kant's system quite unique in the sense that it does not have any materialistic value preference so that the system cannot conclude the same for a real world ethical questions from a person to person.
Besides such epistemological theories, I expect that an ethical theory shall guide "What do I do" for real world decision problems.
Q1. Is it reasonable expectation from an ethical theory?
In the other hand, I feel that ethical theories that I am slightly aware of only describe a list of good things and bad things so that they don't really help in real world decision problems where value comparison is necessary most of time.
Q2. Does any ethical theory concern which value is considered more important than the other so that I can expect a relatively consistent conclusion for real world decision problems from the theory?
For example, if I am hungry and there is a piece of bread in other's hand, is it OK to take it and eat to maximize my well-being? if yes, what if the other is also hungry (to my knowledge)? what if the other is also hungry and is younger than I am? any difference in the decision?
Can any ethical system give normative answers for this hypothetical questions?