questions like "what are good and evil?"

In the domain of philosophy, these seem to amount to "how does \$theory define good and evil?, for each established \$theory". One can imagine it would generate answers that each pick one theory and answer from that perspective, or review several competing theories on the subject.

If there happen to be a lot of theories, the number of answers could get a bit large, but otherwise what is the harm in these? It seems like there is nothing to be gained from forcing these to be reworded as "what theories define good and evil?" with the same resulting discussion.

My concern is attracting answers that express personal opinions without any grounding in philosophical approaches. The Internet is full of long "well I think..." threads, and I don't think that's what people who are actually studying philosophy want. Again, this isn't my field, so maybe it's fine, the scope is implicit, and the stuff that doesn't fit would get shut down, but it made me wonder how to avert problems rather than cleaning up after them, without over-constraining the community.

I think the SX site solves this problem by demanding scholarly references to be cited for practically every single thing.

This results in a situation where you almost can't say "2+2=4" in an answer on that site, without linking to a textbook on number theory. Notably, other sites on SX (StackOverflow, Server Fault, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Math) do not have such a policy, which IMO detracts from the philosophy site.

When you say the internet is full of "well I think", we can call that "original philosophy". The concern must be that original philosophy from laymen is lower quality and less interesting than published scholarly literature. IMO this is not necessarily true. We should evaluate the statement itself rather than judging it by its source (which would be an ironic fallacy on a philosophy site).

Also, experts themselves, in informal settings, sometimes explain simple matters from first principles, rather than appealing to authority, because it's too obvious a deduction for the expert to bother citing a source.

So I think the question is, is the philosophy site intended to be for everyone interested in philosophy? Or only "professional" philosophers (academics, writers or students aspiring to become one of those)? Ultimately, you could take the same approach as Math vs. MathOverflow, once there's enough activity. For now, it seems more logical to keep the scope broad and combine the two.