1) Singer's Famine Relief Argument is an argument formatted as a logical proof that seeks to persuade people that suffering and death from a lack of basic needs is bad, and if we have the means to prevent human suffering that results from the lack of resources, we are morally obligated to do so (as long as doing so does not sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance) 

2) Rachels adapts this argument by extending the logic of Singer's argument to procreation. He argues that parents have a moral duty to prevent unnecessary harm, and bringing a child into the world inevitably exposes them to unnecessary harm. Additionally, Rachels emphasizes that procreation is a choice, and unless individuals can be certain that their child's life will be free from suffering (which he believes is an impossible certainty), they have a moral duty to refrain from procreation. If Rachels's argument was in logical proof format like Singers', it might look something like this: 

I. Unnecessary harm and suffering is bad

II. If it is in our power to prevent unnecessary harm and suffering without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it

III. Not having a child is not worse than or as bad as unnecessary harm and/or suffering 

IV. We ought, morally, to divert resources from procreation to a charity that alleviates unnecessary harm or suffering 

1) Motivation is your will to do something, or why you do something, whereas justification is what you should (or should not) do. Take vaping as an example; speaking from motivation might sound like "I love vaping because it makes me happy and I'm motivated by the stress relief", while speaking from justification might sound more like "I shouldn't vape because it's bad for my health."

2) Rational egoism is the idea that any rational person will act in a way that directly benefits them because it would be irrational not to do so.  

3) Rational egoism is a thesis about justification: because we act in a way that benefits us, we are justified when injustice benefits us. 

Can an atheist consistently accept Divine Voluntarism? Why or why not? 

1) Divine Voluntarism is the idea that God creates morality, so things are therefore moral because God created them to be moral. 

2) Yes, similarly to how one could accept the definition/existence of a witch without necessarily believing in Satan, an atheist could accept the definition/existence of Divine Voluntarism without necessarily believing in God. 

Explain why Nozick claims that merely living as God wants us to live is not enough for us to be living a worthwhile or meaningful life. 

1) Nozick is of the position that it is possible for an individual to live a meaningful life following God's plan, but not guaranteed.  He argues that to live a meaningful life following God's plan, 1) we must have importance 2) our role in that plan would need to be important/purposeful 3) the role should highlight our strengths / the parts of us we're the most proud of 4) and keep us positive. Merely playing a role of fulfilling a purpose in someone else's plan does not give our lives meaning, according to Nozick, therefore God's plan/ purpose for our life cannot guarantee meaning. 

Explain Aquinas's conception of faith as presented by Kekes and the distinction between spurious (non-genuine) and genuine faith. 

1) Aquinas's conception of faith (as presented by Kekes) is the idea that faith is an act of intellect involving reason, moving the bearer toward truths having to do with God. However, because we cannot actually comprehend these truths about God, we must make an act of will to believe them. Will to believe though, according to Aquinas, is not true faith, so we require grace to bridge the gap between our reason, will, and the actuality of these truths about God. 

2) The distinction between spurious and genuine faith is mainly rooted in the presence (or lack thereof) of knowledge. Spurious faith is blind faith, not rooted in knowledge of God or His character, while genuine faith is. For example, if God were to tell two of His followers to kill their kid, the one with spurious faith might blindly obey simply because God said so, while the one with genuine faith might question this order because they know God commands against murder.