After reading Danelle Zellmer’s commentary on Thursday (“Cattle producers not inhumane,” Nov. 7), my attention was pulled to a paragraph that didn’t seem to fit the rest of her column.

Trying to be philosophical, she uses utilitarianism to justify animal cruelty. She says it is OK to be cruel to animals because the importance of feeding our country outweighs the rights of animals. Put simply, the greatest good for the greatest number.

Kudos to Danelle because this argument is utilitarian in nature. However, it supports a view that is contradictory to the rest of her commentary. What exactly are you trying to convey to us?

Jared Strong

Junior

Computer Science