Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

218
 questions about 
Education
4
 questions about 
Economics
89
 questions about 
Law
80
 questions about 
Death
77
 questions about 
Emotion
392
 questions about 
Religion
58
 questions about 
Abortion
110
 questions about 
Animals
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
54
 questions about 
Medicine
51
 questions about 
War
221
 questions about 
Value
27
 questions about 
Gender
68
 questions about 
Happiness
75
 questions about 
Beauty
154
 questions about 
Sex
43
 questions about 
Color
31
 questions about 
Space
58
 questions about 
Punishment
1280
 questions about 
Ethics
208
 questions about 
Science
69
 questions about 
Business
88
 questions about 
Physics
39
 questions about 
Race
23
 questions about 
History
96
 questions about 
Time
24
 questions about 
Suicide
105
 questions about 
Art
67
 questions about 
Feminism
170
 questions about 
Freedom
110
 questions about 
Biology
134
 questions about 
Love
124
 questions about 
Profession
32
 questions about 
Sport
284
 questions about 
Mind
81
 questions about 
Identity
2
 questions about 
Action
574
 questions about 
Philosophy
75
 questions about 
Perception
374
 questions about 
Logic
2
 questions about 
Culture
287
 questions about 
Language
151
 questions about 
Existence
117
 questions about 
Children
70
 questions about 
Truth
34
 questions about 
Music
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
36
 questions about 
Literature
244
 questions about 
Justice

Question of the Day

Suppose S is the set of all things that are blue or green. Then my mug is in S because it's green and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green," and my pen is in the set S because it's blue and therefore satisfies "x is blue or x is green." Now it's true: satisfying "x is blue or x is green" picks out only one set: the set of all things that satisfy "x is blue or x is green." But the condition "x is green" is a different condition, and so is "x is blue."

However: when you say "being blue or green cannot be the reason why any other object is in any other set," there's an ambiguity. That could be read as "being blue cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set and being green cannot be the reason why an object is in any other set." In that case, however, it's false. Being green, and hence satisfying "x is green" puts my mug in the set G of all green things, and in the set S of all things that are either green or blue—that satisfy "x is green or x is blue." These two sets are not the same. One is a proper subset of the other. Being in the set S doesn't entail being in the set G, and also doesn't entail being in the set B, though it does entail being in either G or B.

The key is to formulate the membership condition so that there's no room for ambiguity. We have

o is in S if and only if o satisfies "x is green or x is blue."
o is in G if and only if o satisfies "x is green"
o is in B if and only if o satisfies "x is blue"

These are three different conditions that pick out three different sets. G and B are disjoint from one another and are proper subsets of S. The union of G and B is S. But the formulation "x is green or blue," while not wrong, masks the fact that "x is green or blue" amounts to "x is green or x is blue," and so is the disjunction (the "or") of two conditions. An object is in S if it satisfies either of those conditions. It's in G only if it satisfies the first, and in B only if it satisfies the second. But clearly by virtue of satisfying one condition ("x is green") my mug can be in S and also in G.