Oh, they use them. The problem is that each philosopher has a different precise definition that they feel is natural and matches what we "really mean" when we ask deep questions. Since most arguments and conclusions are phrased fuzzily, you end up with the following situation:

Fuzzy premise -> precise logic -> fuzzy conclusion

where each of those arrows leaves so much room for interpretation that you can build literally an entire subfield by arguing back and forth about what the most reasonable mapping from fuzzy to precise and back again might be, even if everyone agrees that the manipulations in between are rigorously correct.

Styles vary between schools and the one called "analytic philosphy" is big.

But in general when I read philosophers disucssing social matters, I feel they are being too rigorous. Trying to cover all bases when the fuzzy nature of the subject is always going to make their abstractions leak.

They have to do this because they compete with other philosophers who will pick the nits.

The much larger problem is that philosophers can't agree on one (or at least few) axiomatic base(s) they want to base their argumentations on. Thus lots of philosophical discussions are rather of the kind "we have different axioms and thus come to different conclusions".

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." -Voltaire

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "precise", but philosophical arguments do tend to start by defining one's terms or disputing the opponent's definitions, expressed or implied. When continental philosophers talk, that's the only part I can follow.

I took parent's comment to mean it's about philosophers who deal with logic. You may recall that logic as a tool free of opinion originated with Aristotle, and the first thing that comes to my mind in this context is Principia Mathematica.