I saw this question an wondered why it was closed as the reason:
closed as not a real question by Michael Dorfman, stoicfury♦ yesterday
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. See the FAQ.
Doesn't fit at all, as the question was clear and could be answered perfectly, but different answers would be correct, just depending on what ethic you let your answer depend. A good answer would be an analyses of the ethical question by referencing to different ethics and then make a sum up.
I don't just want to only address this closing, but address others as well, as I do see a lot of closed questions, which in my opinion weren't unanswerable or inappropriate, and I fear that this could harm Philosophy SE if every question which somehow seems "not quite perfect somehow" is closed down, as Philosophy just exists because people started to ask questions which somehow seemed to be out of line or ridiculous. For example Socrates did go around in Athens asking "How do you know that ... ?" and founded "modern" Philosophy doing this.
As a conclusion I would state that there is a urgent need to be more open to different kind of questions, as long as they are ABLE to be answered in a philosophical way or by a or many philosopher. I do know that this is a Q&A site, and therefore questions have to be answerable, but I wonder why questions do have to have just one correct answer as it is indicated by the closing I see going on.
A few more examples to underline my statement:
this one for example may have a bad wording, but the heading did point out in what the author needed an answer. And as the question could be answered by quotes and reasoning done by feminist, the closing reason "not a real question" does not apply.
this one, also did state quite a clear question which might be somehow on a line between psychology and philosophy, but as some comments said, it does fit as the question is related to Freud's theoretical work.
this one is another example as the question was answerable, even though the answer was pointing out different philosophers points of view, and the closing reason "not constructive" is a no-fit as this question seemed to rumble in the mind of the author and he wanted it to be answered in a philosophical way, but maybe not a special philosopher but by a sum up of different philosophers which somehow thought about that topic.