It's difficult to say for sure. There isn't always a clear right and wrong. It depends partly on the needs of the situation, and partly also on what consequences a given act could produce. I see all moral systems as being inherently self-contradictory, anyway.
It's easy to say "stealing is wrong," but what if the thief needed the thing more than the person from whom they were stealing? Shouldn't we be all held accountable to the same moral standards anyway, since making an exception for one individual makes it more likely for injustices to go unpunished? Besides, crime is often a symptom of economic inequality, so rather than simply stamping down on crime, why not also focus on societal reform so that people have what they need? Or how about a justice system that focuses on reforming "wrongdoers" so they can have a second chance at life? It's easy to say "murder is wrong," but could we fault a rape victim for taking revenge against her rapist? She might even be doing others a favour by removing one more rapist from this world. On the other hand, the danger in playing hanging judge is a lack of respect for due process. Or, as Gandalf once said, "many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."
I guess my general moral outlook is a utilitarian one, but it's not an absolute thing. I don't think it makes sense to (hypothetically speaking) torture someone for sixty years just so everyone else doesn't have to get sand in their eyes, and nor does it make sense to (hypothetically speaking) tell a serial killer where a child is hiding, out of a belief that lying is wrong. But if utilitarianism really ought to be applied loosely rather than as a catch-all solution, by what metric should "the ends justify the means" be viewed as applicable? It comes down to a bunch of abstract variables.
Also, I find our valuation of other species to be arbitrary. Many people would decry the hunting of leopards for their pelts while wearing leather coats, but somehow that's different because cows aren't an endangered species, or because they're not "beautiful" enough to let live. We even make children's cartoons of farm animals while eating those same farm animals. Conversely, it's somehow morally acceptable to shoot a tiger in order to save a human life, even though tigers are an endangered species. While I understand the concerns vegans have, sometimes it is necessary to consume animal products if a person's situation requires it.
All that said, I still have values I hold dear because they give my life meaning and purpose.