Why Definitions Matter: Many Disagreements Are Really “Definition Fights”
People often argue as if they disagree about facts, when they actually disagree about what a key word should mean in this conversation. If two people use the same word with different meanings, they can talk past each other indefinitely.
Example: “That policy is fair.” One person might mean “everyone gets the same,” while another means “people get what they need,” and a third means “people get what they earned.” They may all be reasonable—just using different definitions.
A practical habit: when a discussion heats up, pause and ask: What definition is each person using? Then test whether that definition is useful for the purpose at hand.
Three Useful Types of Definitions
1) Everyday (Lexical) Definitions: How People Commonly Use a Word
A lexical definition aims to describe ordinary usage. It’s what you might find in a dictionary, or what most people mean in everyday talk.
- “Fair” (lexical): “treating people equally and without favoritism.”
- “Harm” (lexical): “damage or injury.”
- “Freedom” (lexical): “the ability to act without being controlled.”
When lexical definitions help: when you want to communicate smoothly with minimal friction.
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
Common problem: everyday usage can be vague. “Freedom” can mean “no interference,” “having options,” or “having the resources to act.” A lexical definition may not settle a dispute; it may just reveal why the dispute exists.
2) Stipulative Definitions: A Temporary Meaning for This Discussion
A stipulative definition assigns a meaning for a specific purpose, even if it differs from everyday usage. This is not “cheating” if you state it clearly and use it consistently.
Examples (for a particular discussion):
- “Fair” (stipulative): “a rule is fair if everyone would accept it not knowing which position they will occupy.”
- “Harm” (stipulative): “harm includes physical injury and significant psychological distress lasting more than two weeks.”
- “Freedom” (stipulative): “freedom means absence of coercion by other people (not absence of all constraints).”
When stipulative definitions help: when a debate is stuck because the key term is slippery, and you need a stable target to reason about.
Common problem: a stipulation can be biased if it quietly builds in the conclusion. If someone defines “fair” as “whatever benefits my group,” the definition is doing argumentative work rather than clarifying.
3) Operational Definitions: How You Will Measure or Detect Something
An operational definition tells you what observations or measurements will count as the thing. It turns a concept into a procedure.
Examples:
- “Fair” (operational): “a process is fair if (a) everyone has the same time to speak, (b) decisions are made by anonymous vote, and (c) appeals are reviewed by a neutral third party.”
- “Harm” (operational): “harm is present if a person’s medical costs increase, or their functional ability score drops by at least 20% for at least one month.”
- “Freedom” (operational): “freedom of choice is the number of viable options a person can access without punishment or prohibitive cost.”
When operational definitions help: when you need to compare cases, collect data, or enforce a policy consistently.
Common problem: what you can measure may not capture what you care about. Counting “options” might miss whether options are meaningful, safe, or understandable.
How to Test a Definition: What Makes a Good Working Definition?
A “working definition” is not a perfect final answer. It’s a tool: clear enough to reason with, flexible enough to improve. Use these criteria to test and refine it.
Criterion 1: Clarity
Can someone apply the definition without guessing what you mean?
- Unclear: “Fairness is being nice.” (What counts as “nice”?)
- Clearer: “Fairness is applying the same rule to relevantly similar cases.”
Quick test: Ask two people to apply the definition to the same scenario. If they produce opposite answers, the definition may be unclear or missing key terms.
Criterion 2: Not Too Broad
A definition is too broad if it includes things that obviously should not count.
- Too broad: “Harm is anything that makes someone unhappy.” (This would include harmless disappointments and necessary frustrations.)
Broadness test: Try to find a case that fits the definition but seems clearly not to belong.
Criterion 3: Not Too Narrow
A definition is too narrow if it excludes things that obviously should count.
- Too narrow: “Harm is only physical injury.” (This excludes severe psychological abuse or financial ruin.)
Narrowness test: Try to find a clear case that should count but doesn’t fit.
Criterion 4: Captures Typical Cases
A good working definition should match the “center” of the concept—common, uncontroversial examples.
- Typical fairness cases: grading by the same rubric, taking turns, applying the same rule to everyone in the same role.
Typical-case test: List 3–5 obvious examples. If your definition fails on them, it needs revision.
Criterion 5: Handles Edge Cases (Borderline Cases) Without Breaking
Many concepts have fuzzy borders. A good definition either (a) gives a principled way to decide, or (b) admits borderline cases and explains how to treat them in practice.
- Borderline fairness case: two students collaborate; one contributes slightly more—how should credit be assigned?
- Borderline freedom case: a choice exists, but only under extreme pressure—is it “free”?
Edge-case test: Create two borderline scenarios and see whether your definition gives a stable, non-arbitrary answer.
Workshop: Building and Refining a Working Definition of “Fairness”
This workshop is designed to be done with a notebook. You will propose a definition, stress-test it with counterexamples, then revise it.
Step 1: Propose an Initial Working Definition
Write one sentence that you think captures fairness. Keep it simple.
Here are three starter options you may choose from (or write your own):
- A. “Fairness means giving everyone an equal share.”
- B. “Fairness means giving people what they deserve.”
- C. “Fairness means applying the same rule to relevantly similar cases.”
Step 2: Apply It to Two Core Scenarios
Use your definition on these typical cases to see if it behaves the way you expect.
- Scenario 1 (equal split): Two people do the same amount of work on a project. There is $100 to divide.
- Scenario 2 (need-based split): Two people do the same amount of work. One has urgent medical bills; the other is financially comfortable. There is $100 to divide.
Write your answers as: Fair = yes/no and one sentence explaining why your definition gives that result.
Step 3: Generate Counterexamples (Stress Test)
A counterexample is a case where your definition gives the “wrong” result—either calling something fair that seems unfair, or unfair that seems fair.
Use these two classic stress tests:
- Counterexample to “equal share”: One person did 90% of the work, the other did 10%. Equal split feels unfair to many people.
- Counterexample to “deserve”: “Deserve” can be unclear: do people deserve based on effort, results, talent, or luck? Different answers change the outcome.
Now create one counterexample of your own. Use this template:
My counterexample: ____________________________ (describe the situation) My definition says: ____________________________ But my intuition says: _________________________ Why the mismatch matters: _____________________Step 4: Diagnose the Failure
When your definition fails, identify which criterion it violated:
- Clarity problem: key term is vague (“deserve,” “relevant”).
- Too broad: includes cases you want to exclude.
- Too narrow: excludes cases you want to include.
- Typical-case mismatch: doesn’t fit obvious examples.
- Edge-case instability: gives arbitrary answers at the margins.
Write: The failure is mainly: clarity / broadness / narrowness / typical / edge.
Step 5: Refine the Definition (Revision 1)
Revise by adding a constraint or clarifying a term—without making it so complex that it becomes unusable.
Example revisions:
- From “equal share” to: “Fairness means equal shares when contributions and needs are roughly equal.”
- From “deserve” to: “Fairness means benefits track voluntary effort under a rule known in advance.”
- From “same rule” to: “Fairness means applying the same rule to cases that are similar in the features the rule is meant to address (e.g., need for aid, contribution to work).”
Write your revised definition in one sentence.
Step 6: Re-test with the Two Splits (Equal vs Need-Based)
Now re-apply your revised definition to the two earlier scenarios.
To keep your thinking disciplined, fill this mini-table:
| Scenario | What the definition says | Does that seem right? | What would you change? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal split (equal work) | Fair / Unfair | Yes / No | … |
| Need-based split (equal work, unequal need) | Fair / Unfair | Yes / No | … |
If you feel pulled in two directions, that’s informative: “fairness” may be covering more than one idea (equality, need, merit, procedure). You may decide to define a specific subtype, such as fairness-as-equality or fairness-as-need, depending on the goal of the discussion.
A Reusable Tool: The “Concept Profile” Template
When a concept is contested or vague, create a concept profile. This keeps your definition connected to real cases and makes disagreements visible.
Concept Profile Template
- Core idea (one sentence): What is the main point of the concept in this discussion?
- Working definition: Your current best one-sentence definition (lexical, stipulative, or operational—label it).
- Typical cases (3–5): Clear examples that should count.
- Borderline cases (2–4): Hard examples where reasonable people might disagree.
- Exclusions (2–4): Cases that might look similar but should not count.
- Decision rule for borderlines: How will you decide in unclear cases (a principle, a tie-breaker, or “treat as indeterminate”)?
- Related concepts: Neighboring ideas that people confuse with this one (e.g., for fairness: equality, equity, merit, impartiality, consistency, compassion).
- Purpose check: What are you trying to do with this concept—evaluate actions, design rules, measure outcomes, or resolve conflict?
Mini Example: Concept Profile for “Fairness” (One Possible Version)
- Core idea: People should not be advantaged or disadvantaged by irrelevant factors.
- Working definition (stipulative): “A decision is fair if it applies a publicly known rule consistently, and the rule tracks a relevant factor (such as contribution or need) rather than irrelevant traits.”
- Typical cases: same grading rubric; same queue rules; same pay rate for same role and performance.
- Borderline cases: equal work but unequal need; unequal talent leading to unequal output; helping a friend in an emergency.
- Exclusions: favoritism; changing rules midstream; rewarding based on unrelated personal traits.
- Decision rule for borderlines: specify the goal (reward contribution vs meet needs) and choose the relevant factor accordingly.
- Related concepts: equality (same shares), equity (adjusted shares), merit (earned shares), charity (voluntary giving), justice (broader social rules).
