One can argue that philosophy properly speaking is not needed for practical ethics - mental health, success in business or whatever, fulfilling relationships - these can all be gotten using practical wisdom of various kinds.
The philosophical rejoinder is that such a practical ethics is vulnerable to ideology, or at any rate does not truly have a foundation. Sure, you don't need philosophy to be successful in business - but are you sure that's really what you want? Are you sure that's the right thing to do? If you devote yourself to philosophy you might discover that you are not the master of the end to which you are devoting your life, and might thus lose the desire to achieve that seems so natural to you.
But philosophers cannot agree on what the absolute foundation of ethics is. We can suppose that it must be some version of dialectical materialism - that it comes down to naming and rooting out capitalist exploitation, and conceiving of and working towards an alternative that is emancipatory in the most radical sense, perhaps armed with a notion of the absolute or of desire (drawn from psychoanalysis, mathematics, physical science, the history of philosophy)
But it seems like philosophy can go no further than proposing such a foundation. And, because philosophy is a cultural and artistic discipline, especially in its continental lineage, most philosophers will seek to undermine these proposals and modify or replace them. The result is a sort of structural nipping-in-the-bud
What is missing is a sustained effort at engaging with affect, attention, habit and ritual directly. In other words, the dimensions of Majesty and Ascesis are missing from much of contemporary thought - it's power to transform consciousness and its power to be transmitted across wiser culture. Philosophy can't do this on its own, which is why Qabala is needed