I recently stumbled across the following definition:
A ring $\mathcal R$ is called domain, if $\mathcal R$ is nonzero and $0$ is the only zero divisor in $\mathcal R$.
I'm wondering why the condition $\mathcal R$ is nonzero is even necessary, since for $\mathcal R = 0, 0$ already is no zero divisor $(\not\exists y\in \mathcal R, y \not= 0: 0\cdot y = 0)$. So the zero ring wouldn't be a domain without the extra part in the definition anyway. What am I missing?
With the usual definition, it's convenient to have that an ideal in a commutative ring $I \subset R$ is a prime ideal iff $R/I$ is an integral domain. We don't want to consider the whole ring as a prime ideal for the similar reasons that we don't want $1$ to be a prime number. (And of course we want integral domains to be the commutative domains.) It would also mess up algebraic geometry if the whole ring was a prime ideal.
More general theorems break down if we allow the zero ring as an integral domain: integral domains always have a field of fractions that we can embed them into, but for the zero ring, the only possibility is the zero ring itself. Now you could say that just shifts the question to why the zero ring is not a field, but there are multiple reasons for that:
See also too simple to be simple