Thank you very much for the reply. There is certainly much in your messages to consider.

It might be worth reading again David Hume's introduction of the famous 'is/ought' distinction which addresses just this point:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

Treatise on Human Nature.

So what Hume is saying that there is a fundamental difference between reasoning based on 'is' and on 'ought'. He is saying that any argument based on an 'ought' is different in kind from propositions based on 'is' and 'is not' statements, and that the basis for this kind of argument is generally assumed, without any grounds having been given. — Wayfarer

Quoted for truth (whatever truth may be). Thank you very much for sharing it. Hume nailed that one right on the head, imho. It may seem like Logic 101. Maybe it is. But it is a common sense sometimes rarer than a rooster's dentures. And it would be good to remind myself of it before i open my mouth to speak, in actual life or online. Might prevent some confusion and wasted time, to say the least.

"It's wrong to steal, therefore, one ought not steal." — dukkha

Isn't it rather the case that, "doing X hurts people... I don't want to hurt people, therefore I have valid reasons and/or an aversion, not to do X?"

You might also enjoy this thread.

Why ought one be good? Perhaps one ought to be good for the same reasons that one ought to practice good math skills.... No one can force anyone to be good at math, and no one can force anyone else to be good.

I'm assuming that no one can force anyone to do anything.

I'm assuming that no one can force anyone to do anything.

Isn't that why society has laws, to force people to act in a certain manner, most laws prohibit actions and ascribe penalties to discourage certain actions. Most countries have laws that prohibit stealing and set certain penalties for transgression. The progressive movement of society is toward rule/order and not chaos or disorder. I think most people prefer order to disorder and they think that it points to the way society ought to be.

If the synthesis of the dialectical between being and non-being is becoming, then is this comparable to the synthesis between order(law-being) and disorder (chaos, non-being, breaking laws), and what is its synthesis? Maybe Patriotism or Love of country?

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. Does the OP want to know why societies have laws?

And laws obviously don't force people not to break them. People are free to break the law... last time I checked.

Sure people can break laws, and people can be immoral.

Have to take off, I'll get back to this latter. Tks.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. Does the OP want to know why societies have laws?

And laws obviously don't force people not to break them. People are free to break the law... last time I checked.

If you understand that without freedom morality is not possible and if society recognizes certain behaviors to be antithetical to its existence then I would expect that most members of society would pick up on this and they act in such a way as to demonstrate that they concur with societal rules. It induces them to think that they ought to act in a certain manner, which is the question of the OP in my estimation.

Politics is not for the virtue of the state, rather politics is to enable the virtue of its citizens, and what one ought to do is equivalent to how society believes one ought to act . Leo Strauss says that Aristotle is the founder of political science because hs is the discover of moral virtue.

The highest good of the city is the same as the highest good of the individual. The core of happiness is the practice of virtue and primarily moral virtue."

Aristotle is interesting, and the fact that societies have laws is interesting, but does it have anything to do with the OP?
Perhaps your answer is, "because it's good for society?"