 If a theory countenances the existence of normative facts, normative properties, normative propositions, and normative concepts, it ideally would want to explain what the normativity of each of these consists in. To bring the challenge into focus, consider a normative property such as wrongness. Ideally, one might think, realists would want to provide accounts on two levels. First, they might aspire to provide an account of the essential nature of wrongness itself, an account that reveals, inter alia, that wrongness is essentially normative. Second, realists might aspire to provide an account of the essential nature of the second-order property of being normative that is instantiated by wrongness. These accounts would be constitutive explanations, in the sense we introduced. Our question is whether the account of the latter, second-order property could be naturalistic.