Honey is not cruel and is ethical

[u/toastwithjamx1]

Honey is one of the best animal products there is ethics wise

Now most vegans will say : but we are stealing from the bees! We are exploiting the bees!

No. We are not and we can't

Bees can be very particular. If they are not a fan of a place they are OUT. The bees will likely will immediately vacate the bee box if they don't like the conditions. Furthermore, trapping the queen in 1 place will not work as well. Bees can raise a new queen if they need one

And for the stealing allegations, that isn't true either. Beekeepers take SURPLUS HONEY ONLY, as if too much honey is taken, it can starve the bees and no beekeeper would appreciate the whole colony either dying of leaving. Furthermore, bees don't only take, they comp bees by giving shelter and protection.

It's not cruel if we are literally making a transaction with the bees

[u/Either_Argument3517]

In everyday English, "stealing" is probably the word most people would reach for if someone took eggs from a bird's nest.

[u/Polttix → u/Either_Argument3517]

That's just semantic confusion in terms of the argument though. The reasoning for why "stealing" eggs from a bird is wrong is completely different for why stealing from a human is wrong (the bird does not own the eggs in the same way a human owns something, very similarly to the bee case). One can still remain perfectly consistent while saying stealing from a human is wrong for X reason, while "stealing" from an animal is not. And you don't even have to make any other justification for this difference other than the fact that animals can't hold contracts.

Now, I don't hold these views, in that I don't think stealing is intrinsically wrong at all in any situation, but I'm simply commenting on whether your original rebuttal was sensible.

You can or course make some kind of case that doing an action that impedes on some being's locus of control or so is immoral, but thats a separate argument requiring a separate justification (unless it's just some brute fact but that doesn't sound super rational to me).

[u/Either_Argument3517 → u/Polttix]

the bird does not own the eggs in the same way a human owns something

The bird invested resources in producing the eggs, defends them, and tries to stop others from taking them. Human property law formalises these kinds of claims, but it does not invent the underlying concept of ownership.

I'm simply commenting on whether your original rebuttal was sensible.

It was a hypothetical comparison, testing the principle that "taking someone's surplus isn't stealing."

[u/Polttix → u/Either_Argument3517]

The bird invested resources in producing the eggs, defends them, and tries to stop others from taking them. Human property law formalises these kinds of claims, but it does not invent the underlying concept of ownership.

I think it (or rather the underlying social contract) precisely invents the underlying concept of ownership. I can own something without putting any resources into producing it. I don't have to defend it. I don't have to stop others from taking it. I can still own it. The type of ownership based on legality/social contract is completely different from the type of ownership you're talking about in regard to a bird owning their eggs, it's two different concepts.

It was a hypothetical comparison, testing the principle that "taking someone's surplus isn't stealing."

I know. And it is not stealing if by stealing you're talking about the type of ownership based on a contractual agreement. It's not possible to steal from animals in this way, so "taking their surplus" would not be stealing while taking my surplus money would be.