What argument does the author make in lifeboat ethics case against helping poor?

In the lifeboat ethics case, the author argues that it is morally acceptable to prioritize the survival of those already in the lifeboat, even if that means sacrificing the lives of those who are still in the water. This is because the author believes that the prior claims of those who are already in the lifeboat create a duty of justice that makes it wrong to help those outside of the boat.

Some specific arguments that the author makes in support of this position include the following:

- The duty of justice creates obligations between individuals and groups who have a prior relationship or connection to each other. In the lifeboat scenario, the people who are already in the boat have a prior claim to the resources in the boat because they have already put in the effort and taken the risks necessary to get there.

- There are limits to what individuals or groups can be obligated to do for strangers who have no prior relationship or connection to them. When resources are scarce and there are not enough resources to save everyone, it is unreasonable to expect individuals or groups to make sacrifices that could put their own survival at risk in order to help others.

- Prior claims can create a system of obligations and responsibilities that must be respected in order to maintain a just and stable society. Allowing those outside of the lifeboat to board would disrupt the equilibrium of the boat and could potentially lead to the death of everyone in the boat.