In This paper, I will be describing why the non-identity argument is justifiable because black people deserve some type of compensation for slavery due to the mistreatment of their ancestors during the time of slavery in America. On the other hand, I will be supporting the negative that the non-identity argument is sufficient and a valid justification as to why black people do not deserve reparation. They do not deserve reparation on the basis that black people are better off in America than they would have been in their African counterpart had America not participated in the slave trade. I will also be describing why the non-identity problem poses a problem for the compensation argument.
             To put the non-identity problem, in regards to compensation, in my own words, I would first point out that there is no concrete definition to explain who would be receiving benefits from an entity, and going a little further, who would be dealing out this compensation to a specific set of people. Even though this problem of non-identity within the black race is quite a task to distinguish amongst many philosophers, the non-identity problem can be as simple as; should decedents of slaves in America receive compensation, whether it is financial, higher education opportunities, or certain rights that the normal population does not receive. This is basically one of the reasons why tying Non-Identity to compensation is such a daunting task and makes is very difficult.
             When trying to establish that slavery was actually a bad thing that happened to black people, we could try to put a value on their lives, now, compared to what quality of life they would have had if they had been left alone in Africa. I do believe that the people that were directly affected by slavery (actual slaves and their children) should receive some type of compensation because their lives were intensely changed for the worse as they were forced to work for free and live in harsh...