Is there an ethical framework for eating animals that balances honor, survival, and apex responsibility?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the ethics of eating animals — not just from the usual factory farming or environmental angle, but from a deeper, older framework of honor, survival, and the responsibilities of being an apex species.

Here’s the core idea I’ve been shaping:

→ We should only eat animals that have the ability to flee, fight back, or pose some danger to humans. If the only defense is to run, it should require true effort — a persistent hunt, not a casual kill.

→ Domesticated animals are permissible to eat only if they’re herbivores, have lived meaningful lives, and are not utterly defenseless.

→ Domesticated predators (dogs, cats, falcons, etc.) are protected as companions; they share our apex space.

→ Animals capable of deep bonds of trust and service (horses, camels, elephants) are also protected.

→ In times of famine, drought, or societal collapse, restrictions lift: goats, camels, and all wild game are permissible, but domesticated predators remain off limits — a last moral line, a recognition of apex privilege and responsibility.

This isn’t just a “what to eat” guide — it’s meant as a philosophical framework blending respect, necessity, and restraint.

My question to the community: Do you see this as a meaningful ethical position, or is it just a romanticized survival code? Where would you challenge or refine it?

Curious to hear how this lands with people who think deeply about moral systems.