Final answer:
The defense in the historical case R v Dudley and Stephens did use a utilitarian argument, arguing the act was for the greater good of the majority, but it was controversial and ultimately unsuccessful.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to a historical legal case known as R v Dudley and Stephens, which is a landmark English criminal case regarding survival cannibalism. The strongest argument for the defense was indeed a utilitarian argument. According to utilitarianism, as proposed by philosophers like John Stuart Mill, actions are justified if they result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The defense in Dudley and Stephens' trial argued that the killing of the cabin boy, Richard Parker, was for the greater good of the surviving crewmembers, as it increased their chances of survival.
However, the utilitarian argument was controversial, and ultimately unsuccessful in this legal case, as the defendants were found guilty of murder. The court held that such an act could not be justified, even under extreme circumstances, thus making the verdict align with a legal principle that human life cannot be sacrificed to save the lives of others.