Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

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

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.