​

I think the concept of "property" is often used far too loosely in discussions of animal ethics. People say that honey is the property of bees and that humans are therefore stealing it from them, but what does "property" actually mean in this context?

If "property" is understood as a relationship established by a particular legal or social framework between a subject and an object, then it makes no sense to attribute property in this sense to bees. We are projecting a human institution onto a relationship that exists independently of any such institution.

And if we abandon this institutional understanding in favour of a broader, more intuitive definition, the problem does not disappear. What meaningful and reasonably coherent criterion would allow us to say that honey is the property of bees, but that vegetables are not the property of the soil, rainwater is not the property of a cloud or fallen leaves are not the property of the tree they came from? The mere fact that something is produced by, originates from or is biologically associated with an organism does not, by itself, establish that it is its property. We would need some additional criterion to distinguish these cases, and it is far from obvious what that criterion could be.

Of course, this does not mean that animals cannot have interests, that their interests can be disregarded, or that taking something from them cannot be morally objectionable. Those are separate questions. An animal might have a strong interest in a resource without that resource being its property, just as something being someone's property does not automatically settle whether taking it is morally wrong.

My point is that property is a human social and institutional concept, and applying it to nonhuman animals requires a more careful justification than simply asserting that something is their property because they produce it or use it. There may be good reasons to extend certain property-like concepts to some highly social and cognitively sophisticated animals, but that would require identifying the relevant characteristics and explaining why they matter. Such animals, however, represent a small minority of the animal kingdom.

I am fine with using expressions such as “the bees' honey” in ordinary conversation. The problem arises when such expressions are treated as if they established a substantive claim about property, rights or exploitation, and when terms like these are incorporated into a political, historical, economic or moral theory without being given any concrete meaning.

Genuine question!

How is wool not vegan? I mean in most areas its a waste product and sheep need to be shorn anyways since we bred them this way. Literally not cutting their wool makes them suffer a lot and is abusive. Isn't it better to buy real wool clothes and blankets instead or buying plastic alternatives that can harm wildlife for example more when it is discarded compared to wool that can still be used for compost?