1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Morality as systems of instruction for how things may be treated, derives from the use of the Dyadic Authoritative Comparative, as a vehicle for the assessment of value and consequence. In terms of the human relations, people can be classified as something between natural or native, to the completely progressed, educated and sophisticated. The Dyadic Moral Obligation is the Authoritative Imperative of human relations and represents models and standards, as Metaphysical Ideals and Extra Mundane Authorities, to which human activity, behavior, conduct and conditions should correspond. The individual does not freely interpret and self-decide upon the standards of moral conduct, but should correspond activity, behavior and conduct to the models of moral ideals, as established outside the self, by various institutions of family, culture, religion or politics. Because the individual is required to correspond to standards created by others, which are enforced by pressures of various sorts, such as force and confinement, they are considered as obligated and authoritative.

Morality as codes of human conduct originate with the introduction or adoption of Excess and Profit, wherein pre-existent states contain no inherent value and consequence in and of themselves, but require for a determination of value and consequence, a comparison based upon a correspondence to authorities which are conceptual in actuality or in origin, and thus are subjective and relative mechanisms. Human nature may be considered as having no inherent consequence in and of itself. The individual must progress toward and correspond to the standards of the Dyadic Moral Obligation and is assessed value and consequence based upon the degree of correspondence. Dyadic Moral Obligations vary, from standards based on religion as Buddha or Christ-like, to Monarchy as king or queen-like.

OVERVIEW (16 OF 22)             NEXT PAGE