Reply To: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

yekke2:

First paragraph – What is the difference between “would” and “should”? Are you saying that someone wouldn’t do something without getting benefit, but he should do it without a benefit? But why should someone do something for no benefit? Unless you want to understand ???? ???? ??? differently (which you are perfectly entitled to do), the Rambam seems to be saying that someone should do something for no benefit, simply because it is the ???.

Second paragraph – Why should that make you accountable? What obligates you to follow it?

Third paragraph – I would say that he broke the law and has to face the law’s consequences. (At least in theory that’s what I would say. But perhaps it is possible that it would be better for the law if people assumed that there was an underlying moral ?????.)