You shall not steal.

Make sure I understood you correctly: You claim that there is a difference between "You shall not steal" and "The prohibition of stealing," the first being a religious prohibition (which is based on the following prohibition) and the second being a legal, extra-halakhic/meta-halakhic prohibition of crossing the boundary of the rights of my fellow men (but they apply the same thing, that I am forbidden to enjoy wealth that is not mine)? For the first, I am stating by virtue of God's command, and for the second, by reason of the decision of reason, correct?

Obeys. Right!

First of all, you are not obeying, you are simply acting emotionally - meaning you are avoiding the feelings of guilt that will arise in you if you steal. Or the fear of being caught for all that this implies.

Judge, are you claiming that there is no obligation (halachically and morally) or that it does exist but in practice what motivates people is not obedience to the obligation but rather avoidance of feelings of guilt and punishment?

Obligation is simply a word that describes an emotional state of fear of not being able to do something.
Those who use the word obligation in this context do so to portray themselves as robotic humans who do not act on emotion.
In other words, obligation is not something that exists, what exists is fear.

If God commands, is there no obligation to obey Him? Forget the psychological question of what motivates people, I'm asking what you think exists in the world.

There is no such thing as a command.
There is such a thing as speaking and saying words.
And there is such a thing as threatening that if you don't do this, then so be it.

We are used to calling this threat a command. But this too, as you understand, touches on fear.

There's also no such thing as talking, there's such a thing as letting air out through the vocal cords.

I am talking about the soul.
Words in understandable language have a soul existence.
The problem is not the words, but the maneuvers and use made of these words by those who pretend to be “rational” humans by inventing washed-up concepts designed to hide the “dirty laundry”, that is, that they are motivated by emotion like everyone else.

For them, this fact is a disaster; it harms their intellectual divinity.

I understand that you are claiming that there is a conceptual problem with the concept of duty, namely that it necessarily does not exist. (If by chance it does not exist, just as there is no crystal goblet on my table right now, then how do you know that duty really does not exist?) What brings you to this claim?

In the use of the concept of "obligation" by those who liken themselves to rational robots (that is, who act only according to reason), they have uprooted the true root of the concept, which is fear. Then the concept describes something that does not exist and is nothing more than a deception.

I ask whether the non-existence of the concept of duty is necessary (it is a concept that cannot exist) or that in your opinion it could in principle exist but that in our world for some reason you came to the conclusion that it does not exist.

Is there also no distinct mental-emotional state that indicates recognition that duty exists, but only mental states of fear?

We need to be precise. The concept itself exists. For those robotic people, it describes something that does not exist, that is, a mental process that does not happen, and therefore it is a concept that was designed to be such for them in order to deceive.

When a person does something, it is to fulfill some kind of need. It does not matter whether the motive for the action is labeled “must” or “want” or any other label.
And when you label an action with a certain label, you must ask what need it fulfills by simply labeling it.