When a concept is used without a clear, precise, or correct definition, the entire argument or discussion becomes unfounded and fruitless.
Definition:
The conceptual fallacy occurs when the key word or words in an argument are used without a clear definition or with an ambiguous and inconsistent meaning. In such a case, both sides of the discussion, without realising it, are talking about different concepts. As a result, the dialogue deviates from examining reality and is reduced to a quarrel over words. Consequently, any attempt to reach a logical or practical conclusion becomes fruitless. For example, one may say:
“We must remain faithful to our national values.”
Here, it should be noted that if the concept of “national values” is not defined, each group can interpret it as it pleases—from solidarity and tolerance to the exclusion or suppression of others. Such ambiguity makes the statement appear reasonable, but in practice it becomes baseless or even dangerous.
Academic philosophy plays a central role in creating ambiguity in concepts. Ambiguity causes confusion between notions and blurs the distinction between right and wrong, leading to endless problems and crises for humanity. For instance, treating “capitalism” and “market economy” as synonyms is one of the most common examples of conceptual confusion.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- Key terms such as “freedom”, “justice”, “dignity”, or “law” are used in an argument.
- These terms are left undefined or used in an ambiguous and multi-meaning way.
- The other side interprets each concept according to their own understanding.
- The reasoning continues on the basis of these inconsistent interpretations, without any shared ground for mutual understanding of the concepts.
- In the end, irrelevant or unfounded conclusions arise, since there is no agreement on the meaning of the core concepts.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
a) “We defend the right of state sovereignty.”
Here, it should be noted that if the definition of “sovereignty” is not clear, the discussion becomes fruitless. Does it mean absolute independence from any external interference, or sovereignty limited by human rights obligations? Without clarifying this concept, defending human rights or addressing systematic violations becomes paralysed.
b) “We must respect and obey the law.”
Here, it should be noted that if the definition and origin of the law are not clearly specified, the will of a ruling minority can be imposed on the majority in the name of law, violating their rights. Any decree that infringes upon the rights of even a single innocent person is unworthy of being called a law.
2. In education:
“We must teach children about freedom.”
Here, it should be noted that the concept of “freedom” can have opposing meanings. If teaching freedom means liberation from every restriction, it may lead to disorder. But if it is combined with responsibility and respect for others, it becomes the foundation for responsible citizenship. A mistaken definition of this concept can render the entire educational programme ineffective.
3. In the media:
“Social justice is what all people demand.”
Here, it should be noted that “social justice” is a complex concept that can have different meanings for different people: equality of income, equal opportunity, elimination of discrimination, or a combination of these. Using this term without a clear definition leads to misunderstanding or deception of the audience.
4. In philosophy and religion:
“We must return to human nature.”
Here, it should be noted that “human nature” is one of the most ambiguous concepts in religious and philosophical texts. If it is not clear what is meant by nature—biological, psychological, moral, or something else—the discussion about “returning” to it will have neither meaning nor effect.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
The conceptual fallacy is among the most dangerous kinds of intellectual error because, while it appears to make dialogue possible, in practice it empties it of substance. This fallacy has profound consequences that manifest at the individual, social, and institutional levels:
1. It makes constructive dialogue impossible:
When the parties to a discussion have different understandings of the same concepts, the conversation becomes practically fruitless. They believe they are talking about one subject, while in fact they are speaking about different things.
2. It opens the way for linguistic deception and political slogans:
Words such as “freedom”, “justice”, “reform”, or “national values”, if left undefined, turn into tools of propaganda. Such terms can acquire any meaning or justification and, instead of enlightening, become instruments for deceiving public opinion.
3. It allows manipulation of key concepts:
When the boundaries of meaning are unclear, those in power can reinterpret words such as “law” or “morality” in ways that serve their own interests. As a result, “violating the law” can be called “enforcing the law”, and “injustice” can be justified as “maintaining order”.
4. It undermines the foundations of legal, moral, and educational systems:
Because these systems rest upon definitions. Whenever fundamental concepts such as “right”, “responsibility”, or “humanity” lack clear definition, law turns into a tool of domination, morality into a matter of taste, and education into the repetition of clichés.
5. It creates strategic silence:
Avoiding the definition of concepts turns into organised silence in the face of key questions. This silence is the most difficult and distressing form of the conceptual fallacy, as it drives the thoughtful mind to the edge of intellectual exhaustion and despair.
Such silence itself becomes an active tactic for blocking dialogue and evading accountability, because the discussion stops not through reasoning but through the absence of response.
In this situation, silence turns into an instrument of power and prevents the truth of fundamental concepts such as peace, justice, or dignity from being revealed.
6. It creates prolonged and fruitless disputes:
Conceptual ambiguity turns dialogue into an endless argument. Instead of reaching real solutions, people spend their energy defending their personal interpretations of words, and as a result, rational and responsible decision-making is delayed.
How to recognise and respond to it?
Whenever, in a discussion, you notice that a key term has several meanings, or that the two sides understand a concept differently, or that its definition is not clear at all, you should suspect a conceptual fallacy. For a more precise examination, ask:
– “Is this key term clearly defined?”
– “Are both sides of the discussion using the same meaning for this term?”
– “Does this term retain the same meaning throughout the discussion?”
– “Does the definition of this term have a scientific basis?”
A suitable response might be: “As long as a central term is not defined precisely and clearly, no argument concerning it can be valid. Therefore, the discussion should be paused until the conceptual definition is clarified.”
Conclusion:
The conceptual fallacy is one of the main obstacles to correct thinking. Without clear definitions of concepts, no argument can be sound. Conceptual clarity is a necessary condition for critical thinking, constructive dialogue, and responsible decision-making. True philosophy asks us, before making any judgement, to ask ourselves: “Do I really know what this word means?” And if we do not, our first duty is to clarify it. The difference between true philosophy and academic philosophy lies in the place they give to the definitions of concepts. For further information, see “The Role of Conceptual Definitions in True Philosophy and Academic Philosophy.”