Based on Peter Singer’s article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," the following points can be made regarding his views:
A. There is no significant distinction between justice and charity. - This is aligned with Singer's argument that there should not be a strict separation between the two; he suggests that moral obligations extend beyond mere charity.
B. The traditional distinction between duty and charity is legal not moral. - Singer argues that the distinction is not valid morally, proposing that if we have the means to help those in need, it is our moral duty to do so, rather than a charitable act.
C. According to our present way of thinking, it is unjust to not be charitable. - Singer implies that our current ethical framework should recognize the immorality of failing to aid those in extreme need, which challenges conventional views on moral obligations.
D. The present way we distinguish between duty and charity cannot be supported. - This reflects Singer’s critique of the existing moral distinction and how it fails to address the pressing needs of others.
In summary, Singer's work critiques the traditional views on charity and duty, suggesting a moral imperative to act against famine and poverty. All options reflect elements of his philosophical standpoint, but he particularly emphasizes points related to the moral obligations of individuals, challenging the accepted distinctions.