Abstract

How do scholars formulate arguments about economic inequality? What is the role of empirical analysis? In what ways, if any, is the debate informed by ethical considerations? In this paper, we address these questions by evaluating one of the main arguments in Thomas Piketty’s 2014 book _Capital in the Twenty-First Century_, along with its endorsements and rebuttals. Applying Stephen Toulmin’s model of arguments to Piketty unearths a complex argument structure that must be understood for an evaluation to be possible. Of particular importance are the warrants that Piketty used to justify his conclusions from the empirical material. Our analysis revealed that the most influential rebuttals were targeted not at Piketty’s empirical inferences but the way he used these inferences to justify his claims. We also found value judgments to be an essential part of the justification process, making Piketty’s claims ultimately embedded in ethical considerations. We conclude that value judgments are intrinsic to scholarly arguments not only in economic inequality debates but also more broadly.