CON:

A2: SLAVERY AS A MEANS TO A MORAL OBLIGATION:

Steven Darwall of Yale University contends.
For a bipolar obligation to exist some action must wrong an obligee; it
must constitute a wronging and not just a wrong period.
What this means is that in order for slavery to constitute a bipolar obligation the
one who is obligated to do something, must be specifically tied to the wronging that
warrants this response of reparation.

Further:
The Foundation for Economic Education explains:
Why, then, should the descendants of these groups, let alone firstgeneration Americans, be financially liable to blacks as a group? In the
American legal system, damages hinge on the principle of cause and effect
one pays for the damage one causes. In the case of slavery, there is no
culpable person alive to pay for the crime.
the most important error made by those who argue for reparations is
not economic at all but philosophical. The idea of achieving justice by
taking money from one group to pay another for an act that was neither
committed nor suffered by the parties is a collectivist affront to the
American ideal of individualism. People are not interchangeable pawns but
individuals responsible for their own actions. Slaves and slave owners are
dead, and we cannot bring them back.
Perhaps

Contextually, those who committed the atrocities of slavery are gone, also, those
who were directly affected by these atrocities are also gone. These two groups are
the ones binded together by the bipolar obligation to reparation for slavery, not
those alive today.

JACHRISTIAN14