Facts: On July 5, 1884, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks, “all able-bodied English seamen”, and an English teenager boy were cast adrift in a lifeboat following a storm at sea. They had no water with them in the boat, and all they had for sustenance were two one-pound tins of turnips. On July 24, Dudley proposed that one of the four in the lifeboat be sacrificed to save the others. Stephens agreed with Dudley, but Brooks refused to consent, and the boy was never asked for his opinion.

On July 25, Dudley killed the boy, and the three men then fed on the boy’s body and blood. Four days later, the men were rescued by a passing vessel. They were taken to England and tried for the murder of the boy. If the men had not fed on the boy’s body, they would probably have died of starvation within the four-day period. The boy, who was in a much weaker condition, would likely have died before the rest.

1) What is the proper thing to do according natural law, legal positivism, legal realism?

2) What law had they violated to be convicted of a crime? And which source of law is appropriate or better than fair to govern their behavior? Why and why not?