Two reasons are sufficient, both legal and moral.

A. Does it make sense for one thing to have two sufficient reasons?
In fact, the question is:
Can I claim that when I fulfill a moral commandment (for example, love your neighbor as yourself) I am acting morally? Even if it were not moral, I would still fulfill it because of God’s command. On the other hand, can I claim that by doing so I fulfill a commandment, since even if there were no commandment, I would fulfill it because it is moral?!
And in general, regarding what the Rambam called the Shemaic commandments, on the one hand he writes in Kings that we must keep the commandments only because God commanded on Mount Sinai, etc., and on the other hand in eight chapters he writes that of the Shemaic commandments we must keep them in general, which are the final decision of the mind.
In short, what does it mean for something to exist because of two separate motivations?
 
on. I didn’t understand how, with the thesis of separation of powers between law and morality, you solve the following problem raised by the thinkers:
How can it be that God, as a good and perfect God, would command immoral commands? And even if it were to achieve religious goals (as you claim), He is God! He could command something (to achieve those religious goals) in a way that would be in line with morality, right?