 But when Anscombe said we (we secular or at least disunified philosophers) should stop doing moral philosophy until we have an adequate philosophy of psychology, she did not mean that we should abandon all of our ethical thought and talk. This is for two reasons. First, one need not think it’s profitable to do moral philosophy to have views about how to live or to coherently support or oppose various actions. Her plea to stop doing moral philosophy does not conflict with her having strong views about what to oppose, just as one might have all kinds of views about what is and isn’t illegal even if one never does any legal philosophy. Echoing Rousseau, you don’t need to be a philosopher in order to oppose (or support!) injustice.