 The problems with Ross’s moral epistemology are compounded by the fact he thinks the principles of his framework best reflect the main elements of common-sense moral thinking, and that this is necessary to an acceptable moral theory. This threatens to make his position appear parochial (Hare 1971). He is aware of this worry. He replies by saying the number of principles intuitionism endorses is small in number and general in content and this leaves room to reject much of what is commonly taken to be right (FE 190). He also insists on the idea the list of duties (goods) he fixes on are a result of sober reflection on what we really think where this involves appeal to thought experiments and judgements about particular cases (for discussion, see Stratton-Lake 2002b, 114–118). This seems like the right kind of move to make to avoid dogmatism.