Nonhuman Animals as Property Holders: An Exploration of the Lockean Labour-Mixing Account

Environmental Values 26 (5):629-648 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recent proposals in political philosophy concerning nonhuman animals as property-holders – by John Hadley and Steve Cooke – have focused on the interests that nonhuman animals have in access to and use of their territories. The possibility that such rights might be grounded on the basis of a Lockean (that is, labour-mixing) account of property has been rejected. In this paper, I explore four criticisms of Lockean property rights for nonhuman animals – concerning self-ownership, initiative, exertion and the sufficiency of protection offered – concluding that Lockean property rights could be extended to nonhuman animals. I then suggest that Lockean property rights actually offer advantages over interest-based accounts: they more clearly ground property, they are potentially broader, and they are considerably stronger.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-08-31

Downloads
63 (#355,163)

6 months
20 (#140,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Josh Milburn
Loughborough University

References found in this work

Animal ethics and the political.Alasdair Cochrane, Robert Garner & Siobhan O’Sullivan - 2018 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21 (2):261-277.
The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap.Oscar Horta - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):142-154.
Animal Kingdoms: On Habitat Rights for Wild Animals.Steve Cooke - 2017 - Environmental Values 26 (1):53-72.
Ownership and justice for animals.Alasdair Cochrane - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (4):424-442.

View all 11 references / Add more references