It's interesting to think about what questions serve to distinguish various forms of consequentialism. Here's my stab at some of the central questions -- but feel free to add any others that I've missed!
(1) Is it a theory of 'morality' (narrowly construed) or 'practical reason' more broadly?
(2) Direct or indirect? (That is, act/global vs. rule/motive consequentialism)
(3) Deontic or Scalar? (i.e., is significance accorded to a sharp division between the 'permissible' and 'impermissible'? Or is the more fundamental normative status just that of having more or less reason to perform certain actions?)
> 3a - If deontic: where do you draw the line? (E.g. maximizing, satisficing, dual rank views, etc.)
(4) Agent-neutral (impartial) or agent-relative (partial) value?
(5) Theory of welfare: hedonism, preferentism, or objectivism?
(6) Welfarism vs. Perfectionism
(7) Simple aggregation vs. value holism
(8) Precisely comparable vs. imprecise values.
My answers are:
(1) practical reason, (2) direct, (3) scalar, (4) lean impartial, (5) anti-hedonist; lean objectivist, but some sympathy for preferentism, (6) lean slightly perfectionist, (7) value holism, (8) lean precise.
How about you? (Or, for deontologists in the audience, if you had to pick a form of consequentialism which would it be?)