A clever golem rises up against its creator.

Let me sharpen the question. I’m quoting: “My main purpose in this section is not to convince people that there is an obligation to obey the divine command. Whoever does not understand this is very hard to convince. But my sense is that very many people do understand it, and yet wonder why it is true. I have met very many who asked themselves (and me as well): even if I have within me an obligation to the divine command, why should I listen to His voice? Is that rational?” Up to here, your words.

I understand that there is an obligation to obey the Holy One, blessed be He. I do not understand the Rabbi’s remarks later on (from p. 47 onward in booklet 5) about gratitude as a philosophical obligation. There the Rabbi argues that because our existence depends on God, we have an obligation to listen to His voice. That I was not able to understand.
To tell the truth, “reward and punishment” is something that satisfies me as a rational basis for obligation to God, but I simply couldn’t understand this argument of yours (as I asked in the previous question).

Reward and punishment are, in my view, far from sufficient. But even without that, we are required to serve Him not because of reward (Maimonides, beginning of chapter 10 of the Laws of Repentance, and much more). On the contrary, reward and punishment come upon us only because it is proper to obey Him, not the other way around. Otherwise it is just arbitrary.
But as stated, I said what I had to say.

I apologize for going on and on, but the Rabbi didn’t answer my question. The Rabbi answered my claim that reward and punishment are rationally sufficient, but did not answer the question I’m asking about what the Rabbi called “philosophical gratitude.”

The Rabbi proposed “philosophical gratitude” as an explanation for religious commitment, while in my humble opinion it seems exactly the opposite! The Rabbi himself asked my question (at the beginning of page 50 and in the middle of page 54), and I didn’t see that the Rabbi answers it philosophically, only that he brought sources that supposedly prove his words… The Rabbi did not bring any argument that refutes what the Rabbi said there (and what I am also saying here), namely that seemingly an ontological connection should obligate the creator toward the creature, not the other way around.

I respect “intuitions” very much, but this intuition, Rabbi, the Rabbi did not ground in any argument, only brought sources (I also respect the Rabbi’s sources, but I want arguments…)

Thank you very much, and sorry for going on at length.

With all due respect, it seems you didn’t read what I wrote, neither here nor there. I wrote that this is an intuition that exists in many people, and if someone does not find it within himself, I have no way to explain it to him. At least not beyond what I wrote in the article with the examples I brought there.

הכרת טובה: בין מוסר לאונטולוגיה

If so, if it’s only an intuition, then it really doesn’t “obligate”—meaning, everyone will do according to his own feelings: if it’s part of his intuition he’ll observe it, and if not then not. If so, should I try to create such a moral intuition for myself (at present I don’t have one…)? I ask this question about other moral matters too: is there value in getting to a point where I do things altruistically if I don’t feel any need for it? Is there anything to persuade myself of here?

I’ll just add that according to this, the obligation to bring people back to repentance under the law of mutual responsibility is also unclear (if I’m not mistaken, I once saw a response article to Dr. Dror Fixler where the Rabbi writes that bringing people back to repentance is included in the law of mutual responsibility. Though I don’t remember the article exactly…)

It is completely obligating, except that if there are people who are unaware of their obligation, I do not necessarily have anything I can do about that. Exactly like someone who is unaware of his moral obligation, or someone who does not know Euclidean geometry and also doesn’t understand when it is explained to him.
You didn’t understand the point. We are not talking about a feeling of need. Intuition is not an emotion but a cognitive tool. If you have an intuition, that means you recognize something as true and binding. Therefore, when there is intuition, one must do it. Someone who lacks intuition is simply blind (see the previous passage).
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of acting out of identification, which is a psychological question that many have dealt with (such as Maimonides in chapter six, and Rabbi Kook in the discussion of “the upright person” and “the one who suppresses”).
Therefore there is also a full obligation to bring people back to repentance. Exactly like people who do not behave morally.