In her famous critique of various ‘modern’ presuppositions in moral philosophy, Elizabeth Anscombe suggests that philosophers ought to give up on the idea that there is a sense of ‘ought’ or ‘obligation’ that is specifically moral. This concept, she argues, originally derived its sense from a notion of an authoritative divine law against which human actions could be measured; the presumed existence of such a law made it possible to render absolute verdicts on human acts as licit or illicit. In the absence of recourse to such a law, the terms ‘moral obligation’, ‘moral ought’ and ‘morally wrong’ are empty and best abandoned. It would be better if we look for the ground of normative claims regarding human life and action in our knowledge of our own ‘species’, where this is understood, ‘from the point of view of the activity of thought and choice in regard to the various departments of life’.