All the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act. The view that the value of an action derives entirely from the value of its consequences. This contrasts both with the view that the value of an action may derive from the kind of character whose action it is (courageous, just, temperate, etc.) and with the view that its value may be intrinsic, belonging to it simply as an act of truth-telling, promise-keeping, etc. The former is the option explored in virtue ethics, and the latter in deontological ethics. Consequentialism needs to identify some kinds of consequence whose value is not derivative from actions, but resides, e.g., in states of pleasure or happiness, thought of as ends towards which actions are means. Opposition to this way of looking at ethics may begin with wondering whether self-standing states of this kind exist, given that generally we take satisfaction and pleasure in acting, and it is not possible to separate the pleasure as an end from the action as a mere means. Critics also point out the way in which much ethical life is ‘backward looking'(seeing whether an action is a case of breaking a promise, abusing a role, betraying a trust, etc.) rather that exclusively ‘forward looking’ as consequentialism.
A policy which makes happy the greatest number of persons, or the one which frustrates satisfaction of desires of the least number of them, is the only one which is right to choose. Utilitarianism shows interest in distribution of goods only if this has some impact on maximisation of overall happiness. Authors that defend this line of thinking generally claim that approximately equal distribution of resources has the best effect. This is so, they believe, because a certain good is of less value to someone who already has a lot of it, than to someone who possesses a very short supply of the good (e.g. one extra dollar means much less to a millionaire than to a beggar). If this is so, it follows that the loss of happiness of the rich is much smaller than the gain of happiness of the poor, if some reasonable amount of goods is taken from the former and given to the latter. Therefore, a redistribution of resources increases general happiness of a society.
Human values become a factor when looking at environmental ethics. Human values are the things that are important to individuals that they then use to evaluate actions or events. In other words, humans assign value to certain things and then use this assigned value to make decisions about whether something is right or wrong. Human values are unique to each individual because not everyone places the same importance on each element of life. For example, a person living in poverty in an undeveloped country may find it morally acceptable to cut down the forest to make room for a farm where he can grow food for his family.