 It is tempting to say that a theory that provided a constitutive explanation of the nature of normativity would clearly be preferable to primitivism. For, we assume, the goal, in theorizing, is to explain things. Accordingly, regardless of the subject matter, other things being equal, a theory that says that such and such cannot be explained is on that count alone less attractive than a theory that offers an explanation, or that at least leaves open the possibility of an explanation. Nevertheless, of course, in the absence of an explanation, we need to be open to the possibility that one is not going to be found, and even, perhaps, to the possibility that, for some reason, no explanation could be found. There are physical constants that are unexplained in our best physical theories, for example. Perhaps normativity similarly is not open to explanation.