Saying that consequentialist theories are “often agent neutral” may only add confusion, as it’s not a part of the definition and indeed “consequentialism can be agent non-neutral” is part of what separates it from utilitarianism.
My understanding is that some philosophers do actually think ‘consequentialism’ should only refer to agent-neutral theories. I agree it’s confusing—I couldn’t think of a better way to phrase it.
I got into a very stupid argument with my tutor once about whether impartiality was part of the definition of consequentialism so I can attest that some people are wrong about this!
Saying that consequentialist theories are “often agent neutral” may only add confusion, as it’s not a part of the definition and indeed “consequentialism can be agent non-neutral” is part of what separates it from utilitarianism.
My understanding is that some philosophers do actually think ‘consequentialism’ should only refer to agent-neutral theories. I agree it’s confusing—I couldn’t think of a better way to phrase it.
I got into a very stupid argument with my tutor once about whether impartiality was part of the definition of consequentialism so I can attest that some people are wrong about this!
Aha. Well, hopefully we can agree that those philosophers are adding confusion. :)