It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues This is a statement, not a question. By using the word ”causes”, it also suggests established facts leading to known outcomes, which may also be facts known to contribute to an already defined outcome or effect. ”Engaging deeply in philosophical issues” may mean 'debate'? Prioritisation requires the use of hierarchy. We could also be 'balancing' causes judged to be equal. Inevitably there has to be evidence, and as 'facts' may be disputed, even if they're 'rational, the evidence might require ”engaging deeply [how ever you define ”deeply”] in philosophical issues”. Too many undefined concepts.
It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues
This is a statement, not a question. By using the word ”causes”, it also suggests established facts leading to known outcomes, which may also be facts known to contribute to an already defined outcome or effect.
”Engaging deeply in philosophical issues” may mean 'debate'?
Prioritisation requires the use of hierarchy. We could also be 'balancing' causes judged to be equal. Inevitably there has to be evidence, and as 'facts' may be disputed, even if they're 'rational, the evidence might require ”engaging deeply [how ever you define ”deeply”] in philosophical issues”.
Too many undefined concepts.