3,1  Nature of the relation.
3.1.1  All relation is an accident of the substance that allows him to interchange its capacitys with other substances without the substances are mixed nor confused.

3.1.2  The person as intellectual individual substance can be related to other people or any other alive being or the things without losing its own personality.

3.1.3  Own limitation corporal of human being, that it disables to him to make single his creativity, is the foundation of his relacionabilidad, since it impels to look for the aid to him or it helps of other beings for in group to obtain his intention.

3.1.4  In the man the relation with the others is not satisfied to the ones of survival of the spice, but that those relations respond to an intellectual conscience of power or dominion to control the outer reality.

3.1.5  The relation between men, therefore, is an intellectual relation in which mainly it does not share the own matter but the values that are object of the spirit.

3,2  Cause of the human relations.

3.2.1  The last material cause of the human relations is necessary to find it in the same nature that establishes a generative bond by which all man is born and is helped in his postnatal defenselessness by other people.

3.2.2  The last formal cause of the relation takes place in the perception that the man acquires of the received aid when he reaches the reason use.

3.2.3  The own creativity of the intellectual form of the human being informs to him into the convenience of converging efforts to reach new objectives.

3.2.4  The main scopes where the human intellect has perceived like more advisable the application of the relation, according to the legacy of history, are:  Relations by the work:  Work is the conscious application of the manual or intellectual energy human to obtain a good of the surroundings.  From the reduction that of the work makes the physics as science is considered like a necessary act of all the alive beings for its survival. It would be possible to be affirmed that the own cellular metabolism is a work that consumes energy by the exercise of an application.  Despite the previous thing exposed, the term work is applied with respect to the human being like the conscious exercise and frees to obtain a good, or by necessity of subsistence or the satisfaction that produces its benefit to him.  The man more likely from his origin knew the effectiveness the work in common like resource to obtain more easily objective than they felt like to him advisable and that acting single to him they became impossible or of extreme difficulty.  The work relations supposed the creation of a new institution of relations different from the one from blood or relationship; the corporation was created, that involves for its members rights or obligations that arrange by the word and that their use institutionalizes like custom.  Relations for the production:  Production is the set of goods obtained from the average outside by the action of the work.  The production becomes a relation space since the man considers the specialization in the work suitable, so that everyone produces a class of goods that interchanges with the others. This elementary form of interchange is the one that gives origin to the commercial relations.  The specialization in the work constitutes the hinge of the progress and it is only possible in society. To the intellectual act to which it follows the voluntariedad of the man to specialize and to interchange the goods of the production are considered like the own act of their sociability. We say that the man is sociable by nature by his disposition to agree with others the specialization upon the tasks of production derived from his creative intellect and that they overwhelm his perspective of progress. The appearance of the commercial relations between the men originates one of the most difficult quantifications of the history of the economy and they are to appraise equivalence between the amounts of exchange of the respective goods in order to the interchange relation is right for the parts.  The commercial relations that surpass the limits of the natural groups were to a great extent origin of the right that established the protection of the parts not by virtue of the force but of the reason.  Relations for the defense:  The own instinct of conservation of the alive beings motivated that the men friends grouped themselves for their self-defense before the mishaps that could put in risk their lives. This defense, which originally it would have like main objective to fight the animals that attacked the man like prey, would be constituted as defense of common interests before the rivalry of the human groups.  When the man begins with his creative activity to dominate the nature, first with the cattle ranch and later with agriculture, he constitutes a certain familiar or social patrimony on a portion of territory. The products derived from that work serve later in a first state for the sustenance of the group and for the interchange with other groups. Those goods produced constitute automatically in goods which it can also be wished by the other people's groups, that can try to appropriate him by means of the force, according to the exemplary way whereupon they have learned to dominate to the other species animals. This originates the fight between humans and the necessity to group itself for the defense.  Another cause of oppression between human beings settles down when they consider to be able to have the others like slaves to his service to execute his plans of progress.  The danger which deriving of the wars is originated that the towns organize their defenses on the base of the alliances, which originates relations that originally structured for the defense, also are forged for the attack.  The defense originates relations of greater magnitude than the commerce, because being the very out of proportion personal defense in relation to the capabilitie of the dangers it is grouped in communities that guarantee their defense they constitute alliances with other communities of proportional way to the danger degree that watchs.  Relations by the religion:  It has been attributed to religion one of the greater causes of relation within the human groups, because of each historical town they have been left vestiges of the collective practice of religious cults. That importance of the relations derived from the religious belief is maintained in the restlessness before the destiny that motivates the man to deposit its confidence in who offers a perspective to him of accomplishment for next world.  It would be possible to be alleged that the religion would constitute a slope more of the cultural relations of a certain social group, but the difference is in that while the culture is the effect of the relations inside del group, the religion many times has constituted the social amalgam and not in few cases in ideology of conquest and annexation of other towns.  This relation would be necessary to assimilate it with more success to a religious sociology that to the religion, because the historical legacy sends more to us to the superstition of the rites  that to the personal relation with the important spiritual realities.  The importance of religious sociology in the configuration of the human relations is so that many towns have defined their idiosyncrasy around the form to conceive the religion. One of the common characteristics of the influence of the religious relations within the society is the constitution of hierarchies, that often transfer the scope of the spiritual thing to constitute themselves in true political hierarchies.

3.3 The social relations.

3.3.1  It is considered that the relations between people acquire social category when the same ones affect a plurality of individuals and are established by some norm of rational consensus from where arises the commitment for the parts.

3.3.2  The social relations are different in himself from the natural primary relations that are dominated the man by an affective entailment. The social relation is created and demands a voluntary frame to constitute itself. Once established the society the new generations are born and grow in the social scope, which could deceive on its nature. This assimilation of a new being to the society supposes its implicit implication to the use of the constituted order.

3.3.3  One says that the group relations are social only and as soon as they are rational because they are followed of the intellectual exercise to order the acts of a set of people to obtain in either collective greater or an individual one.

3.3.4  The social relations look for like next object the common good, that he is the greater good than is projected on each individual man maintaining that also does not reduce the same due to the other members of the colectivity. The benefits of the communal property are characterized because they are not possible to be reached singularly to the margin of the society; for that reason, the society constitutes itself in a necessary structure for the well-being of the man.

3.3.5 The aim or last object of the social relations are always the individuality of the people because it is the sensible moral unit to good. To understand the communal property as the benefit applied to an abstract being collective suprapersonnel touch the absurd one of an application without real organization that can support it. Only the substance is subject able moral to receibe the quality of the good.

3.3.6  Although the society is a necessity for the well-being and complete development of the person, it can be constituted like a tiramnical servitude when it does not distribute with justice the common good, reaching his limit in the explloitation situations and slavery in which it snatches the social good to people or groups.

3.3.7  The social relations, to the being elaborated according to the will of the group that composes them, display different forms and determinations in the ample spectre of the humanity, although by the mutual influence, when making contact the different societies, tend to neutralize the differences by the assimilation common in the structures that experimentally produce more well-being.

3.3.8  A denominator exists who usually is in almost all the forms of originating society of the own essence of the human being. This common nature is the one that has allowed to the understanding between the different cultures and integration from the singular individuals in other forms of civilization.

3.3.9  In the social relations, by being created, all its bonds they are rational, they have why, and the knowledge of the same one is the one that it justifies that it can permanently be debated by the same society or compatible groups.

3.3.10  All human society has a doctrinal body that gathers the constituent agreements of its members. This Constitution can be maintained in the customs or explicitly written up at least in its fundamental principles.

3.3.11  Any society, like group of rational beings, has the capacity to rearrange in its opinion the bonds previously established. The society is an alive organization and in continuous evolution, as much because their members perfect their thought like by the successive generational renovation.

3.4 Forms of relation.

3.4.1  Since the society is formed by the framework of relations between a group of people, the possible ones created by them present a as great paradigm of possibilities as the initiative of the people suggests them. The relations  according to a tipología of application by their explicit objectives could be classified, but a classification also fits according to implicit the subjective intentions of its actors. This last form is the one that it justifies to conceive a moral in the human relations according to the intrinsic distribution between the parts of the aim by which the relation settles down.

3.4.2  Between the forms of relation according to the final object they could be mentioned: domestic, economic, labor, educative, cultural, sanitary relations, of leisure, etc. All conserves the particularitity to promote well-being for the members of the colectivity that sustain the relation.

3.4.3  By the intrinsic form in which it distributes to the aim and the subjective intention of the parts, three forms of social relations could be considered:  Relations of service.  Relations are of service the ones that freely establish the people with other conscious subjects to make a mutual interchange of benefits or services.  The relations of service base their philosophy on the interchange of aids. The own work is put to provide a good to other people by an agreement with multireciprocity.  The service does not suppose a submission or dependency, but a cooperation between several parts. It is the foundation of all the society where the integration of the group projects to increase own good by the ordered swapping of task or service.  The idea of service has maintained a peyorativa connotation within the society by influence of the power structures that conditioned the service to the servitude. Of there the meaning of servants in front of masters or gentlemen. But, in himself, the semantic content of sercice adjusts to the action to help to another person in a necessity.  In the set of the society the necessities appear like perspective of survival and progress, therefore the mutual aid to confront those challenges collectively demands an interchange of services according to the faculties and abilities of each individual.  The service is derived from the specialization. When a person acquires the ability for a work is able to increase the production with respect to nonexpert, which allows him to put goods to service of the others with smaller effort of  which to these it would suppose to them, which originates the yield of the interchange of services.  In the simplest societies the exchange between services is made by the barter. The adjustment between such institutionalizes by custom so that a distribution of the works as of the attention to the necessities is obtained as much.  When the societies grow of dimension they appear instruments of change, between which most distinctive it is the currency, whose objective is to facilitate the interchange of the services using it as it pledges for the value of the acquired service.  The valuation of the services individually to permute them in the market has lead to lose its own perspective of interpersonal relation. The materialization of the currency whereupon acquires the service can induce to forget the disposition and the personal effort to create and to share that good with the colectivity. Except for the goods that everyone can take directly from the nature, all the others are the result of the human effort that are contributed like a service to the society.  The terminology of service in some contexts is assimilated to altruistic benefit, but the service is it so is or economic noncontraprestación. In the social relations the services are interchange object, because of another way it would not exist possibility of survival and well-being. The transcendental thing is that the relations of service adjust like justice relations.  To arrange in the society of services without contraprestación allows to readjust the existing imbalances, although it demands that who this service lends it has insured the vital means of the minimum well-being. Solidarity as value guides the lending of services with the objective to obtain an equality of opportunities to the development that allows the access to a free interchange of services in a justice frame.  The relations of service in the society not always demand the direct contraprestación between the members, but that also constitutes generic relations whose balance takes place in decurso of the social cycle. It is possible to be mentioned for example: the raising of the children, the education, the attention to discapacitados, the agreements of cooperation, etc. Relations of justice.  The justice relations are those in which the parts look for honestly a fairness between the goods and efforts is come off that jeopardize each one of the members that participate in the relation.  The justice relations demand an ethical conscience of the subjects that arrange, so that their determination is to act well, which is made if the aim of the relation is or the common good and not or own or the individual one.  Justice, as it forms to give to everyone according to his right, demands that the common benefit is distributed or projects proportionally to the effort it jeopardize by each subject. The difficulty arises in how the different participation or matters from interchange of the relation are evaluated to be able to appraise the fairness in the judgment, distribution or exchange.  Despite the difficulty to evaluate the exchanges, where the subjective appreciation fits, the justice relations always demand the intention of conscience to look for the fairness between which it is offered and it is received, like the consideration next of respect to the universal right.  The lack of objectivity that the own interest can cause when evaluating the conditions of a relation so that it settles down under a justice form is what it has done that the objective right by means of the law and constitutes judges for their application.  The objetivación of the law does not guarantee justice, because the same law can consecrate marks of relations that are unjust. The ethical person, therefore, must look for justice in her relations like a determination of straight conscience over the shelter that the law tries to him.  The justice relations constitute the  most organic form of the social relations and the ones that maintain the justification of the free allegiance of the citizens to the community. The justice relations offer to contributor an arrangement in the society because they guarantee, according to the theory of their nature, the effective accomplishment of the object by which the individual joins itself in society.  It would be possible to be affirmed that a colectivity has trasformado itself in genuine society according to the degree of accomplishment of the contents of truth in the application of justice to its internal relations.  The justice relations must include all the scopes of relation whit the ones that settle down between grouping nuclei. The different sets that enter relation automatically create a new frame that it demands to review the own ones of each set in the opinion of the determinations that can take place of the new situation. Relations of dominion.  Relations of dominion between one or several people settle down when a part imposes the conditions and the application of the benefits of the relation by means of the power of the coaction or the force.  In the society there is relations of dominion because of the unequal state of force of the individuals and groups that integrate it.  The dominion relation produces an inequality between the service that is lent and the one that is received. One of the parts is the operated victim and in the other the dominator locates itself that obtains goods of out of proportion way to the effort that renders.  The dominion can be exerted by the physical reduction, as it is the case of the slavery, or by the coaction on the freedom of exercise, as it is the exploitation. In both cases justice forces. Proportionally to how it is attempted thus to physical and moral integrity it will be the gravity of the injustice.  Those are dominion relations all that do not respect the fundamental rights of the people. Any social relation demands like first condition the respect to the dignity of the person. The free contracting of a social relation cannot never justify an abuse on the other person, in special in the cases in that these were suffering been of necessity and for that reason they became manipulable subjects easily.  The dominion relations frequently take place in the state, producing the bankruptcy of the coexistence. The power groups can impose their dominion either organizing themselves to the margin of the law or distorting the essence of the right dictating unjust laws that they legalize the abuse authority.  In the families and the tribes relations of dominion by imposition of the physical force or the custom in the roles of distribution of power able take place frequently.  One of the effects of the dominion relations is the implicit acceptance by the parts like situation in fact, and therefore that domination tends to be perpetuated like custom.  In the international roles it is where more net the relations of dominion by the net organization of the power of the states are appraised. When a dominion relation is perpetuated, the liberation yearning remains latent in the pressed society, which frequently ends at a revolution, that in the measurement that pronounces doing violence it is followed of other new relations of dominion.

3,5 Hierarchy and authority.

3.5.1 By the natural way to be generated the being human, the society maintains itself in the time by means of a linear sequence that forms the successive generations. For that reason, the same one reflects the own tipología of relation that occurs in the familiar group in regard to the dependency degree and protection in which the descendants grow.

3.5.2  The family forms a natural hierarchy between parents and children, at least until the age of the self-sufficiency of the descendants, because first they have acquired the rational capacity whereupon they govern his surroundings, which constitutes the main object of formation of the children and establishes a knowledge hierarchy that affects all the life of internal relation of the group.

3.5.3  The forcefulness of the knowledge that purifies the experience is what it has formed from remote the time of the society the one that the greater ones exert the hierarchy of decision of reflected way to as they exert it in the periods of education of the small ones, having itself consolidated an exemplary hierarchic dependency towards the parents beyond the vital period of dependency.

3.5.4  The hierarchy between parents and children has formed the moral idea of authority, by which the right settles down to order the resources for the manutención and education based on the criterion of reason of the parents.
   Of some form one settles down that the authority not only responds to the hierarchy of generational origin but
also to the effective application of the means ones for the exercise of that responsibility. The father and the mother acquire a special role who transfer the social group in which they coexist and that the society throughout the centuries has interpreted of way very varied.

3.5.5  The idea of hierarchy in the most elementary society, therefore, has acquired a nature character that is transferred to the social relations constituted by agreement. The image of order, based in the existence of an authority with responsibility, leans in the necessity of application of the reason for the profit of the agreed objectives, so that in the same pact the ways settle down in which the hierarchial structuring of the direction of such will be made.

3.5.6  The essential distinction on hierarchy in the society is in which the same one only is of nature with respect to the relations of vital dependency, whereas any other hierarchy that settles down between the people according to the convenience is its right to be in the free will of the men to establish it, and therefore the authority of the same one is based on the portion of individual sovereignty that the participants in the constitution of the social group confer. The authority does not follow the natural hierarchy that could be considered, but that  same is maintained in the will of those who establishes that arrangement in the social group, reason why the authority disappears if the hierarchy system is reconsidered. Whereas in the elementary societies of natural relation the authority derives from a hierarchic position of nature; in the social groups constituted according to the exercise of the freedom of its individuals the authority is delegated, and the hierarchy constituted specifically for the administration of that responsibility.

3.5.7  The authority in a community is delegated based on a confidence deposit and therefore the same one is only justified when that confidence stays. The authority synthesizes a moral position constituted by the capacity of leadership for the good exercise of the social objective and a ethics of responsibility to fulfill straighty the commitments decided. The authority has therefore one doubles perspective: on the one hand, the delegated legitimation to fulfill a project ethically applying all the precise means; and by another one, the moral ejemplaridad that is required to be deposit taker of the confidence of the social group.

3.5.8  As much if the application to the benefit of the represented ones is deficient, as if a decrease arises from confidence to be questioned the moral behavior, the content of the authority cracks because the inplicit relation of representativeness that is delegated for the management of the objectives it only justifies in the measurement that such is reached and that the average employees identify themselves like allowed by the intervening social subjects.

3.5.9  The authority is formed like a value that distinguishes to certain people by its special capacity to lead a project. As individual value depends on the qualities of the personality of each subject. As social value is constituted by the majority agreement of conformity of a group, and it is maintained  permanenetemente only by the countersignature of the group. The social authority to anybody belongs by nature, although people exist who by their natural capacity are more capacity to receive that charge. What in any case it must prevail is that the authority is not exerted by natural dispositions but by the deliberate consent of the group.

3.5.10  It is said that the authority is held, exerting aains right, when the power prevails for the force or anyway of coercion, or when having been legitimized by most of the social group even harmed fundamental human rights, although were the ones of any minority. In that case the authorityits would have mutado their ethical value to the degradation of the authoritarianism.

3.6 Solidarity.

3.6.1 Solidarity is a value and a virtue of the human person that promote the attitude to share with its resemblances the luck of its well-being.

3.6.2  It is a value of the person because it develops the operativity of the subject in order to a social relation with good purpose. As soon as it impels the feelings to build being favored another being revalues the personal ethics. It is necessary to remember that a value is something that enriches to something; what enriches intrinsically to a person is the good that is derived from the intellectual exercise of the will.

3.6.3  It is a virtue because solidarity consolidates proportionally like a habit in the will to the exercise of  mutually binding acts that a person makes . The perfection or remuneration of the internal affection of the human feeling is followed of the real exercise of the acts, more than of the intentions. The will towards the good is only satisfied with or the effective one. Solidarity as feeling is based in the personality like a habit according to the own experience of satisfaction that follows the service of the good. This habit favors sensitivity to know the necessities other peoples on which to act.

3.6.4  Solidarity is not evaluated by the amount of the applied good but based on the relation of service that becomes effective. The value of good for each individual is subjective and depends on the effort that is applied to produce it. Solidarity, therefore, represents the effort of the personal persistence to serve with own a person or the other people's group.

3.6.5  The solidarity exerted from a situation in fact represents for many sectors a repair of the relations of justice previously violates. This is perceived from the social conscience and represents the historical duty not very often assumed.

3.6.6  One of the effects of solidarity is to recover the balance between the relations from the personal commitment of one of the parts, generally the one that enjoys greater degree of well-being.

3.6.7  Solidarity is not reduced to the benefit of material goods, but of other many types of services that lend a good to another person. The attention to the emotional stability, the education, the culture, the joy, the rest, to the security, etc. is many aspects where solidarity relations can be exercised. From this aspect, the spiritually richer people are the one who have greater option of the shared in common exercise.

3.6.8  Solidarity demands the resignation to the dominion relations. The foundation of solidarity is in the conscience of right the same of all the people, which automatically excludes the justification for the exercise from the dominion on others. Solidarity in himself only looks for the exercise from the good another one, although consequently it derives internal sensation from happiness, which is incompatible with the moral dissatisfaction of the doty infringed which it entails all injustice.

3.6.9  Solidarity implies the social commitment so that the laws are constructed according to justice relations and favor the exercise of the relations of service. Solidarity like habit can be harnessed by the same society based on the values that it promotes.

3.6.10  When solidarity exerts from the exigency of a moral conscience that follows the dictation of a superior norm usually denominates charity. The distinction between both virtues is plus a cultural concept that practitioner, because always the decision is followed of a free intellectual act whose only distinction can be in which in the charity acts, in addition to the effective good to the fellow man like person, itself waits suparnaturals compensates.