I will take Fatalism vs Compatibilism as an example. I hold that the only difference between them is the definition of free will. Namely, I prefer the Compatibilistic definition, that free will is acting according to one's motivations (essentially), and therefore I am a Compatibilistic person. I also believe though that fatalism is not necessarily false, and that it simply uses a different definition for free will (a sentient being having undetermined future behaviour.) I just think the Compatibilistic definition is preferable to the fatalist one. The only issues that remain are scientific and/or theological ones (does quantum mechanics discount fatalism entirely?/does God's omniscience allow free will to exist in accordance with a fatalists definition of free will?) Other examples would include defining precisely good and evil before doing ethnics and defining existence before talking about whether something exists,
What is it called to approach philosophical issues like this, reducing them to a preference of definitions, and maybe with some scientific and/or religious loose ends. More over, is there a name for what it is called if one believes that all philosophical issues can be solved in this manner?
Note: An emphasis is put on how trivial a philosophical issue can be made with precise definitions.
Note: This is contrasted the using solely a bunch of philosophical thought experiments and using vague philosophical language. It is also contrasted too using vague philosophical definitions.