Post History

I think even the broadest questions like "What are good and evil" has to be deemed a valid question to philosophize about. The answers will have all kinds of flavors. Maybe even bringing in aspects of religion and not only of one but many. 

You can argue there has to be "an" answer or even a "best" answer or "objectively qualifyable" answer. But those are criteria that do not match any philosophical discipline. There is only the discourse. 

Questions are key. Answers are key. 

Any assessment what the quality of an answer is can be deemed censoring or opinion based exertion of power over other opinions that are detrimental and unwanted in philosophy. Because if not all answers are equally worthy to be considered, there is no fair and open philosophy happening. 

I can also not see to either favor "philosophical" questions or "factual" questions, if they touch the topic of philosophy.

Certainly, asking "What is the capitol of France?" might result in "Paris". But it can also excite others to find a more suitable, philosophical approach and answer to this.

I think in philosophy (and other fields), we should not pursue to find "the best" answer. Instead yes, collect answers. Because there are always more perspectives to a given situation than only one or only one best. 

Even if questions are able to generate infinite interpretations, in common practice this will not be happening. At some point, after maybe 5 or 10 answers, the "answer space" is depleted more or less, the votes are made, the badges are given. After a year nobody will post there anymore anyway. And an auto-close could be issued after a question lays dormant for a few months or so. 

But many might find later to this question and just read the answers and be amazed by the multi-faceted picture the answers present. Neatly sorted by votes which indicate a kind of "importance sorting" (but skewed by the time of posting; later posts tend to get far less votes than the first one).

I can only see advantages.