Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

I can't think of a single institution, and marriage is an institution, that has morals. They can all be used by moral or immoral people for moral and immoral purposes. Contracts are not in and of themselves moral.

Say you have a contract with a farmer to deliver 100 tons of food. The farmer grows his own food and sells whats left. If the farmer has a bad year and only has 100 tons of food your contract means you can force him to deliver 100 tons of food leaving him to starve to death. Is that moral? The contract doesn't care. Only the people in the contract do.

I must ask you one more thing, regarding institutions.

You have made me see that marriage is like economics, that it is an artifact of human imagination, and the agreement among certain humans who "play the games" jointly -- thereby it is a social technology. When inventing the rules of the game it is done by moral agents, i.e. human beings.

So how can institutions and contracts that are made by moral agents be purely amoral?
Isn't the creation of contracts based on some idea of morality because moral agents are behind it making the contracts?

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, right?

Are contracts based on morality or not? I don't think they are. They are merely a convenience to hold both sides to the same standards.

Written contracts probably came about because verbal contracts were not working when one side would cheat. But which side was cheating? In most disputes both sides can feel they are the one being morally right and following what they think the contract is. At that point it comes down to what is legally right.

The only way to enforce a contract is through the institution of government. As we know, institutions themselves are not moral.

I suggest reading "The Merchant of Venice" and see who you think is correct on the contract and why.

When I have time, I'll see to reading it.

Thanks for being patient with me on the maddening matter regarding marriage.