Are all moral questions philosophical? Some moral questions depend on factual questions (historical or scientific), but I mean the other ones.

Regarding the age old conundrum of the tree falling in the forest. According to Barclay, there is no sound if there is no mind to hear it. I am thinking that there may be no human around hence no human auditory organs to absorb the waves and send the message of "sound" to the brain.....but that is a bit anthropocentric. The forest is full of creatures that have auditory organs, so some brains will hear the sound....some minds will perceive the sound of a crashing tree, no? (listening to Nigel Warburton's A Little History of Philisophy)

The problem with government is, in my opinion, not because of the type (democracy, polity, monarchy, etc.), but because of the social classes. If everyone was in the same class (upper, middle, lower) or if everyone was apart of no class whatsoever, would this eliminate a few problems associated with government?

Person A receives a large amount of money. Being selfless, he doesn't want to keep the money and sends it to person B. Unfortunately, B is also selfless, and sends the money back to A. A then sends the money to C. Fortunately, C is selfish and keeps the money. Can there be selflessness without there being selfishness?

It seems that by using philosophy, anyone can argue for or against anything (even if one plus one equals two in the decimal numbering system, or that if I am really sitting in a chair right now (what is a "chair?"). After all, I have found a few philosophical and academic articles arguing in favor of trivialism, which is possibly the most bizarre and absurd philosophical view ever. Is there such a thing as something being morally wrong to everyone in the literal sense? Are there actually philosophical literature or articles that support or present arguments "for" rape, incest, adult-child sex, the torturing of infants for amusement, serial murder, terrorism, cannibalism, bestiality, necrophilia, or similar things? I would not be surprised if there is at least "one" philosopher who supports one of those acts, or if there is at least one philosophical and scholarly article that argues in favor of any of those acts.

During a conversation with my friend about cosmological argument for God, friend told me that cosmological argument is not even true because causal principle is outdated and not needed in modern physics. After the conversation, I searched for that by internet and found out Russell first argued like that and many contemporary philosopher of physics agreed that causality is at least not needed in our fundamental physics. I think if this kinds of argument succeed, then causal principle is undermined and as a result cosmological argument cannot be hold. So my question is, how do proponents of causal principle and cosmological argument answer to that?

If I'm asked "Do you have an opinion about opinions?" I cannot say "No" because then I would be expressing an opinion about opinions. Therefore isn't it impossible not to have an opinion about opinions?

what is the ontological status of puppets and dummys? i'm think of of ventriloquist dummies and puppets like emu-what kind of existence do they have? what happens to them when they are put away in a box?

"Everything in moderation" is a common view. But then moderation should be in moderation. If so, isn't moderation not fully moderate, and thus is partly immoderate?

Is there anything wrong with the inheritance of wealth?