There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy. 

What about [karma](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#KarReb)?

> 
> And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that ***each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues***. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter.
> 
> 
> 

Or again:

> 
> He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is
>  karma; and ***the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of
>  that performed karma***. Without karma, an agent is not established.
> 
> 
> 

*The Inner Kālacakratantra*, unknown page. 

> 
> The law of [karma](https://thebuddhistcentre.com/westernbuddhistreview/two-meanings-karma) is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview.
>  In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have
>  consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact,
>  it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of
>  karma as another manifestation of dependent arising
>  (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything
>  that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law
>  of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally
>  followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But
>  they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably
>  to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic
>  consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has
>  presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing,
>  ***lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an
>  unpleasant human situation or in hell.***
> 
> 
> 

Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness?

---

I was looking at the [wild fox koan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_fox_koan) here, and this part struck me:

> 
> Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny
>  causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one
>  cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and
>  effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they
>  are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this.
> 
> 
> 

I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect.

But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience *cause as effect*. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: **karma**.