Conclusion
The most useful approach depends on the specific context: ethical zoos focused on conservation and animal welfare align best with utilitarianism and situation ethics, while Kant’s ethics and natural law challenge practices that exploit animals or disrupt their natural purposes.
My opinion before and after the project:
Before starting this project, I mostly believed that zoos were unethical, with only some exceptions. I thought many zoos put profit over animal welfare and that keeping animals in enclosures was unnatural and wrong. However, I also recognised that some zoos focused on conservation and education, which made them harder to judge. I felt that while a few zoos might do more good than harm, most were not truly ethical.
After looking at different ethical views, I still believe that zoos are unethical, and now I think even fewer zoos are truly ethical than I originally thought. While zoos can help endangered species and educate people, many do not provide animals with the space, care, or freedom they need. Utilitarianism argues that zoos are good if they create more happiness than suffering, but I now see how difficult it is to measure this fairly. Kantian ethics makes a strong case against zoos, as it says animals should not be treated as a means to an end. Situation ethics approach can be inconsistent. Natural law suggests zoos go against an animal's natural purpose, making them morally wrong in most cases.
Now, I am more convinced that most zoos do not meet ethical standards. While a small number may genuinely help animals, I now think that many zoos exist more for human benefit than for conservation or education. My view has changed from believing some zoos were ethical to believing that very few actually are.