In, "The Morality of Euthanasia," Rachels rejects a strictly Utilitarian argument that would allow euthanasia in some cases, but he endorses a similar argument, one he says is "inspired by Utilitarianism." What is the difference between the two? In the revised argument, the violation of rights is permitted, while in the Utilitarian argument the violation of rights is always forbidden The revised argument is egoistic in nature The revised argument does not use the principle of utility as a premise whereas the Utilitarian argument does All of the above There is no difference between the two