Final answer:
As an attorney for Dudley and Stephens, arguments could be made on their behalf based on necessity, self-defense, and the principle of the lesser evil. As an attorney for the government, arguments could be made based on upholding the principles of law and order, deterrence, and the sanctity of human life.
Step-by-step explanation:
As an attorney for Dudley and Stephens, the arguments that could be made on their behalf include necessity, self-defense, and the principle of lesser evil. The attorneys could argue that in the extreme circumstances they faced, stranded at sea without food and water, their actions were necessary to ensure their survival. They could also argue that they acted in self-defense, as they believed their lives were in imminent danger.
As an attorney for the government, the arguments that could be made on the government's behalf would include upholding the principles of law and order, deterrence, and the sanctity of human life. The government's attorneys could argue that taking another person's life, regardless of the circumstances, is a violation of the law and should not be justified. They could also argue that allowing such actions to go unpunished would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the deterrence effect of criminal punishment.