 This (importantly) puts him on the same level as almost all moral theorists working today. It is less clear Ross is able to divest himself of synthetic a priori truths. But if his endorsement of synthetic a priori truths is one way of securing the standard way of doing moral philosophy, which involves appeal to thought-experiments, intuition, what we think, and so on, it is more difficult to reject. It is more difficult to reject still if we accept such claims in areas outside ethics and if we are not keen on (radical forms of) empiricism.