Examples from the past:

(1) In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke puts forth The Memory Identity Theory,
which holds that personal identity is constituted by how far a persons consciousness can be
extended backwards.1 His theory concludes that memory is both a necessary and sufficient condition
of self. I take Lockes account of personal identity to have two components. First, he defines what he
means by personal identity. Second, he argues that as long as their memories are the same, two
persons existing at different times are the same. I aim to show that memories are not sufficient for the
persistence of a personal identity through time.
(2) The paper is structured in three sections. In the first section, I will discuss Lockes theory of Memory
Identity. In the second section, I will give my objection to Lockes theory by showing that having
same memories does not guarantee the perseverance of personal identity. In the third section, I will
explain that having different personalities makes two people different, and summarize my main
points.
OR
(1) J. S. Mills Utilitarianism puts forth the greatest happiness principle 2 as the foundation of morals. It
states that actions are right if they promote overall happiness, and wrong if they promote the reverse
of happiness. However, I argue that it is necessary to remember that the agent is incapable of
foreseeing the actual outcomes of his actions. Even if he expects the outcomes of his actions to
maximize the happiness of all, the actual consequences of his actions might turn out to be harmful. I
also argue that even though Mills theory suggests that there is a big overlap between the expected
and actual consequences of our actions, the overlap is much smaller to an extent that his theory is
deficient. In this paper, I will argue that in situations where actual consequences are different
from expected consequences, Mills theory falls short of providing a framework for making
moral decisions.
(2) The paper is structured in three sections. In the first section, I will discuss Mills theory of
Utilitarianism. In the second section, I will give my objection to Mills theory, define actual and
expected consequences, and provide a scenario illustrating how expected and actual consequences
might differ. In the third section, I will mention the response that Mill gives in his essay and show
how it falls short of answering my objection.
(3) Section I
In his essay Utilitarianism, Mill lays down his theory and claims that it is the ground of moral
obligation. By utility, he means happiness, intended pleasure and the absence of pain. 3 His theory,
often called the greatest happiness principle, 4 sets the ground for moral obligation. It states that an
action is morally permissible if and only if among the actions possible to the agent, the agent chooses
the action that maximizes the overall utility. This shows that we should know what consequence the
one action we choose to perform would bring, and for it to be morally permissible, it should promote
happiness.

1 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (A Meridian Book, 1964), 212.
2 John Stuart Mill,Utilitarianism,(Hackett Press 1979), 7.
3 Mill,Utilitarianism,7.
4 Mill,Utilitarianism,7.