Peter Singer argues that giving money to famine relief is:
a.
Morally permissible.
b.
Morally forbidden.
c.
Morally required.
d.
Supererogatory.
my answer is a
I disagree.
http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
To determine Peter Singer's position on giving money to famine relief, we can analyze his ethical theory. Peter Singer is a prominent proponent of utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or well-being.
In the case of famine relief, Singer argues that giving money is not only morally permissible but also morally required. He presents his famous "drowning child analogy" to illustrate his point: Imagine you are walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning. You could easily save the child by wading in but would ruin your expensive shoes in the process. Singer argues that most people would consider it morally obligatory to save the child, even if it means sacrificing their shoes. Similarly, Singer believes that individuals have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death caused by famine or poverty.
Therefore, the correct answer to the question is c. Morally required. According to Singer's utilitarian perspective, it is not just morally permissible or optional to give money to famine relief, but rather a moral duty that individuals should fulfill to maximize overall well-being.