  As noted earlier, Locke thought the personal identity relation was,  in effect, an accountability relation: what makes Y at t2 the same person as X at  t1 is just what makes Y accountable – morally responsible – for X's actions. Now this general account of moral responsibility won't do without immmediate supplementation. After all, various excuses (e.g., brainwashing, involuntary intoxication) may serve to get one off the accountability hook even if one is identical to the original agent.  So let us suppose, then, that Locke thought one is accountable, in the absence of excuse, for all and only those actions performed by someone with whom one is identical. Is this true?