Carbon taxes are a good first step. I would prefer a “qualia tax” where suffering inflicted to animals is quantified using Dennettian heterophenomenology and category theory.
From there we can assign a mathematical value to suffering imposed and calculate an appropriate taxation level.
I once had a friend propose this over dinner when I was still living in LA. He himself was in touch with many of Dennet’s students.
No you can apply an infinite negative value/infinite cost and use that to bootstrap deontological ethics.
You would do this in a mathematical system where only a single infinity exists since otherwise you might get some weird utilitarian algebra with infinities which would ruin the simplicity of deontology.
But anything less than an infinite tax on animal slaughter would be akin to outright tolerating extreme suffering of a living thing so long as someone is willing to pay for it. I can’t see any difference between an infinite tax and just banning animal slaughter.
From there we can assign a mathematical value to suffering imposed and calculate an appropriate taxation level.
I once had a friend propose this over dinner when I was still living in LA. He himself was in touch with many of Dennet’s students.