So there's a philosophically sound argument that eradicating malaria comes before worldwide Internet access. Or does it just rely on majority consensus that the

So there's a philosophically sound argument that eradicating malaria comes before worldwide Internet access. Or does it just rely on majority consensus that the one should come before the other? I mean if you keep asking "Why?" like a 5 year old, eventually you hit what underlies the reasoning: some basic assumptions that each person holds and that the rest of the argument is built on. E.g. Kant's categorical imperative. The problem is not everyone might agree with your most fundamental assumptions, and when you arrive at questions like "Internet or malaria eradication first?" people will disagree. Unless you lay those assumptions bare, it's unnecessary argumentation. E.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.." Well I might just not hold that that truth is self-evident, and disagree with you on any argument you build on that assumption.