在我反对沃伦的论点中，我认为动物权利的弱势不能保证良好的环境政策。然而，通过赋予有知觉的动物权利从而保护它们，它们是一个保护伞物种，整个生态系统受到保护。一个包含有知觉动物的生态系统的退化会影响生命、健康、快乐和痛苦。如果这些影响对有感知的动物是负面的，那么无论环境恶化的原因是什么，都有可能得到批准。例如，如果有知觉的动物会因为建筑的建造而遭受巨大的痛苦，那么从道德上讲，消灭或破坏整个生态系统是不合理的。有知觉的动物作为它们所处环境的保护者。一个没有感知动物的环境不太可能存在，所以生态系统会因为涉及到感知动物而受到保护。从这篇论文中得出的结论是，沃伦的论点是，使用感知作为一个区别于其他动物的特征来决定什么动物拥有权利，会产生糟糕的环境政策。生态系统应该有价值，即使它们不包括沃伦定义的有知觉的动物。生态系统作为一个整体不应该被抛弃。虽然很少有生态系统不包括有知觉的动物，但如果有知觉的动物权利不是环境状况的一个因素，就会出现这种情况。只有允许有知觉的动物拥有权利，当有知觉的动物不参与时，生态系统才会受到伤害。从我反对的例子中可以看出，整个生态系统可以被摧毁，这在道德上是可以接受的。没有知觉的生物即使感觉不到疼痛也有价值。动物权利的争论不应该产生糟糕的环境政策。动物和生态系统需要通过动物权利得到支持，而这并不是沃伦软弱的动物权利立场所能做到的。
加拿大留学生代写作业:环境政策
In my objection to Warren’s argument I argue that the weak animal rights position does not guarantee good environment policy. However, by giving sentient animals rights and thus protection they are an umbrella species and the entire ecosystem is protected. The degradation of an ecosystem that contains sentient animals affects the lives, health, pleasure, and pain. If the effects are negative to sentient animals then it is likely that whatever the cause of the environmental degradation would be ratified. For example, if sentient animals will suffer greatly because of a building be built then it would not be morally justifiable to eliminate or degrade an entire ecosystem. The sentient animals act as a protector of the environment in which they are located. The likeliness that there is an environment that does not have sentient animals is unlikely, so ecosystems would be protected because of the sentient animals involved.The conclusion drawn from this paper is that Warren’s argument is that using sentient as a distinguishing characteristic to determine what animals have rights creates bad environmental policy. Ecosystems should have value even if they do not include sentient animals as defined by Warren. Ecosystems as a whole should not be discarded. Although there are very few ecosystems that do not include sentient animals, a situation could arise where sentient animals rights are not a factor in an environmental situation. By only allowing sentient animals to have rights ecosystems can be harmed when sentient animals are not involved. As seen with the examples in my objection, entire ecosystems could be destroyed and it would be morally acceptable. Non-sentient organism can have value even though they do not feel pain. Animal rights arguments should not yield poor environmental policies. Animals and ecosystems need to be supported through animal rights, which are not accomplished by Warren’s weak animal rights position.
