Do I break up with him or am I making the wrong choice?

He sounds like a really nice friend.

Full stop.

How about getting a puppy?

That's about what you've got here.

If you feel that you will be unhappy in the long run in the relationship then why prolong the inevitable?

If you have all these doubts then you should at least voice your concerns with him because communication is a huge factor in relationships.

That's just my advice!

I've spent a large portion of my life contemplating break-up ethics and have developed a thorough philosophy concerning break-ups. I read a great deal of Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, and legal theories to develop my philosophy. In fact, my major paper for my doctorate was on the subject of breaking up.

In my view, it is unethical for you to break-up with your boyfriend. There are 2 reasons for this. First and foremost, you would be breaching a contract. All relationships are contracts. It's simply that our modern democracy has chosen not to enforce those contracts. But most certainly, a moral contract exists nonetheless. At a minimum, a relationship is a quasi-contract or a contract implied-in-fact.

A contract exists whenever you have a quid pro quo bargained-for exchange. In the case of a relationship the parties contract love in exchange for love. This creates a moral obligation because both parties sacrifice something trusting that the opposing party will fulfill their end of the bargain.

By leaving your boyfriend, you breach contract. And this is a great moral wrong. This is just like a business contract. If a distributor asked a supplier to build a factory to make dolls and then that distributor pulled out of the contract, that distributor would most certainly be sued in court for millions of dollars. Love is even more valuable than products in a business deal. Your love is worth millions to your boyfriend.

You entered the relationship. If you breach that relationship, you violate natural law.

There's a second reason why a break-up would be wrong - but we can get to that later.

Oh, please, this is no contract. People end relationships all the time and ending a pure dating relationship (e. g. no vows and no ring) isn't a breach of an agreement at all. By your logic, I would owe my 8th grade boyfriend compensation for breaking up with him over 40 years ago.

And your definition of a contract is lacking. This isn't a commercial exchange. Read up on what happens to engagement rings in contract law - the courts feel it's not their business to intervene in such matters, and this relationship has even fewer ties than that. http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/what-happens-to-the-engagement-ring-in-a-broken-engagement.html

I am not referring to a legally binding contract but instead a morally binding contract. In every sense of the word, a relationship falls within the category of a contract - offer, acceptance, consideration. At a minimum its quasi-contract or contract implied-in-fact.

I know the courts don't enforce it - but that's because our legal system has turned a blind eye to justice. I'm well aware that courts feel it's not their business to intervene. And because of that, our country is suffering an immense injustice.

As a matter of metaphysics, harm is done by breaching a relationship. Expectation damages are left uncompensated, and this is an immense injustice.

So reiterate, yes, relationships meet the even the basic definition of contract: offer, acceptance, and consideration. It's just that our modern society (including our courts) has tyrannically refused to recognize them.