This seems pretty open-and-shut for some of the other SE sites, but I'm not quite familiar with how Philosophy.SE works yet so forgive me if this is a poor question or has been discussed previously (I couldn't find anything).

Consider the question "Is there a school of thought that considers human less significant than other beings?" and the question "Are human lives always more important than animal lives?" from the past few days. On any other SE site I've used, the former would be regarded as a decent question but the latter promptly closed as not answerable because the answer given by a anthropocentrist would necessarily be different to that given by a biocentrist, a ultilitarian, etc. Is this standard enforced on Philosophy.SE?

Would the solution be to require as a rule of thumb that all questions either state a connection to a given philosophy/school (e.g. "What is Kant's view on X" "What does Y mean in the context of school Z") or else clearly tied to a theory/method (e.g. a question from formal logic)?

EDIT: On re-reading the help section, this would seem to fall under 'open-ended, hypothetical;, but the crux of my question still stands.

| |
  • 1
    We have had a vote about more or less these kinds of questions, and the outcome was to edit questions that are 'too subjective' to fit in better. But, this vote has not become much of a standard yet. Maybe we should be more active in that. I've edited the question you gave as an example now. – user2953 Aug 28 '15 at 19:40
  • 1
    @Keelan That makes sense, and I certainly understand the bind that beta SE sites find themselves in with not wanting to scare off questioners. I just personally think that having some sort of objective standard makes things easier for both the general users and the reviewers. – DTR Aug 28 '15 at 19:48
  • 1
    I'd be greatly interested in getting this and several other issues nailed down about what we are hoping for. / I like in general the idea of requiring a link to a philosophical school in questions, but I wonder how much traffic we could sustain with that restriction. (Maybe we need an alternative criteria for "identify the view" or "what are some views" questions in we wish to salvage them) – virmaior Sep 2 '15 at 4:29
  • @virmaior Perhaps we're attacking this from the wrong angle - instead of looking at what all of the good questions have in common, can we isolate something common to the bad ones and just say "Don't do this" in a way that is clearer than the current idea of 'answerability'? Surely if anyone can solve a question about the nature of questions, it's a bunch of philosophers :P – DTR Sep 2 '15 at 7:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .