Robust moral realist views maintain that morality is objective. Part of what it is for morality to be objective, realists claim, is for there to be a range of moral facts that are stance-independent. (Roughly, a fact is stance-independent just if there is a full metaphysical story about it that is stance-free—where a stance is an attitudinal state or activity, whether actual or counterfactual.) Views in the broadly constructivist tradition reject this claim. This paper defends realism’s commitment to the stance-independence of moral facts by offering two arguments, both of which turn on the contention that fundamental moral facts admit of essence explanations.