The question whether moral facts play any role in the explanation has loomed large debate in contemporary metaethics. Moral anti-realists deny that moral facts do play an explanatory role. By contrast, the existence of moral facts is a necessary condition for explanation according to moral realists. Moreover, they believe that moral facts play an important role in the best explanation. This paper illustrates and examines both views. In particular, Harman’s arguments for moral anti-realism and Sturgeon’s replies to him have taken into consideration. It explores some arguments to refute the existence of moral facts and argues that moral facts do not play any explanatory role.