Are institutions only the matter of sociology? Don't philosophers have something to say about them?

I read Prof. Galen Strawson's piece on consciousness in the New York Times. He claims that consciousness is "wholly a matter of physical goings-on" and then spends much time addressing the limits of what physics can tell us about matter. His essay, however, never mentions life. Isn't life what "breathes fire into the (physics) equations"? Wasn't the evolution of nervous systems in living organisms the difference between non-living complex physical phenomena and the unique powers of the human brain? Ignoring life's contribution, to me, seemed to remove the center from the argument and constituted a "Very Large Mistake". Am I correct in thinking that a theory of human consciousness must account for life?

Are people who are vegan, and also make their pets vegan( by giving them vegan anima food) doing something ethically correct since their pets can't really decide if they want to be vegan or not, and it's against their natural behavior to be vegan?

Who is the first philosopher ever? Is it Thales?

On a answer dated February 2, 2016, philosopher Michael Lacewing distinguishes between "the right" and "the good". In common usage "right" and "good" often mean the same thing: "do the right thing" means "do the good thing". Could he or others explain that distinction? Thank you.

Do I have the moral duty to act in accordance with my best interest (when it brings no harm to other people)?

I want to know if the structures of logical arguments changes by logicians over time (like scientific theories might change in light of new evidence)? I also wanted to know if there might also occur changes in existing logical fallacies (other than adding more fallacies to the list) and will it ever happen that the things that are now listed among logical fallacies might become a valid way to reason (I don't think so)?

Are mandatory school vaccinations ethical from a deontological perspective assuming parents could still chose to homeschool their children?

Objectively, is a single person more free than one in a romantic relationship?

Am i wrong in assuming the admiration of things, ideas, and/or people comes along with not only an unspoken, but definite predilection for them? - or is it possible to have that admiration, but dislike them entirely? i.e. Thinking something is the greatest thing ever, but all of its positive attributes are why you don't like it; maybe because of how the results of using said attributes makes you feel. Or would you say that the person doesnt truly admire it or even that they dont truly dislike the results?