Peter Singer argues that giving money to famine relief is:
a.
Morally permissible.
b.
Morally forbidden.
c.
Morally required.
d.
Supererogatory.
Peter Singer argues that giving money to famine relief is morally required. To understand Singer's argument, we can look at his famous essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."
In the essay, Singer presents the drowning child analogy to illustrate his point. He argues that if we were walking past a shallow pond and saw a child drowning, we would have a moral obligation to save the child, even if it meant ruining our expensive shoes. Similarly, Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering from extreme poverty and famine, even if it requires us to sacrifice some of our luxury or non-essential spending.
Singer's central thesis is that our moral obligation to alleviate suffering is not diminished by the physical or geographical distance between us and the people in need. He believes that we should extend our moral responsibility beyond our immediate community or country and consider the plight of those suffering in other parts of the world.
Given these arguments, Singer concludes that giving money to famine relief is morally required because it can significantly alleviate human suffering and save lives. He suggests that we should give to the point of marginal utility, meaning that we should prioritize basic needs and contribute until further donations would no longer substantially improve the situation.
Therefore, the answer to the question is c. Morally required, according to Peter Singer's argument.