OK, so, force is moral if the suffering inflicted is outweighed by the suffering prevented?
Does that sound acceptable?
It's difficult to know how much "suffering prevented is", especially if it lies in the future, so it's a bit problematic.
But yes.
That's a slippery slope. Once you've justified the use of force to do good once, where do you draw the line?
Wouldn't it be better and more efficient to take money from everyone so you could have one centralised agency to give food to everyone to make sure they all have both the adequate amount and the necessary nutrition that everyone needs? As one example
Indeed it is a slippery rope and a lot of politics fail while doing this.
And you could discuss it, because right now there are people starving all over the planet. But the discussion whether or not this is a good idea would fill another hundred pages.
There just is no easy way out.
It's really not, it's actually quite easy. Unless you have to justify government actions, then it becomes impossible...
I guess you will throw a generalized sentence in my way like "Nobody should be forced" and be like "That is it".
I'm afraid it's not.