我反对沃伦的论点，认为仅仅把有知觉的动物作为有权利的一部分，并不能保证良好的环境政策。我认为，只有在道德上发现伤害动物是错误的，动物会感到痛苦，其他重要的生物，如植物，才会被贬低和排斥。只有赋予有知觉的动物权利，许多动物才会失去权利。想象一下，在一个生态系统中，只有蜘蛛、植物和微生物等无感生物。根据动物权利的弱势地位，在这里建一家完全摧毁整个生态系统的医院在道德上是可以接受的。生态系统中没有有知觉的动物，所以不会有任何痛苦。然而，消除整个生态系统并不是一个好的环境政策。根据沃伦对知觉的看法，其他不感到疼痛的生物体不需要被考虑。没有知觉的动物或有机体对整个世界仍然具有重要的价值。动物权利的弱势地位并不能保证良好的环境政策。另一个例子是，如果环境中有某种毒素，它只会影响没有知觉的生物和动物，却导致该地区有知觉的动物停止繁殖。有知觉的动物不会因为毒素而遭受痛苦，但是这个物种最终会因为无法繁殖而灭绝(Katie McShane, 11-15-10)。软弱的动物权利立场并不认为这在道德上是不可接受的。因为有知觉的动物没有受到毒素的伤害，它们的权利也没有受到侵犯。然而，这是一个糟糕的环境政策。
My objection to Warren’s argument is that only including sentient animals, as having rights, does not guarantee good environmental policies. I argue that by only finding it morally wrong to harm animals that feel pain other important organism such as plants are downgraded and dismissed. By only giving rights to sentient animals a wide range of animals are left without rights. Imagine that there is an ecosystem where there are only non-sentient organisms like spiders, plants, and microorganisms. According to the weak animal rights position it would morally acceptable to build a hospital here that would completely abolish the entire ecosystem. There are no sentient animals in the ecosystem, so there would not be any suffering. However, eliminating an entire ecosystem is not a good environmental policy. Other organisms that do not feel pain according to Warren’s view of sentient do not need to be taken into account. Non-sentient animals or organism still can have important value to the world as a whole. The weak animal rights position does not guarantee good environmental policy. Another example would be if there was some toxin in an environment that only affected non-sentient organisms and animals but caused sentient animals in the area to stop reproducing. The sentient animals do not suffer because of the toxin but the species will eventually go extinct from not reproducing (Katie McShane, 11-15-10). The weak animal rights position does not find this morally unacceptable. Because the sentient animals are not suffering from the toxin their rights are not being violated. However, this is a terrible environmental policy.