Cornell realists like Boyd and Sturgeon argue 'good' refers to a cluster of natural properties that causally regulate human flourishing, fixed by causal-historical reference rather than analytic definition.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Analytic definition(as the contrasting method rejected by Cornell realists): Explaining what a word means by breaking it down into simpler ideas—like defining 'bachelor' as 'unmarried male'—based purely on the logic of the words themselves.
Boyd(as a key Cornell realist philosopher): Richard Boyd, a philosopher who argues that moral properties like 'goodness' are actually natural properties we can discover, similar to how scientists discover facts about chemistry.
Causal-historical reference(as the method for determining what 'good' actually refers to): Determining what a word means by looking at the actual history of how it came to refer to something in the world, based on real causes and events, rather than by defining it through logic alone.
Causally regulate(as how natural properties relate to human flourishing): To influence or control something by causing specific effects; in this case, certain properties actively shape whether humans can live good lives.

Based on where you are in your exploration