I feel like I'm starting to get an idea that this agency-obligation construct seems to be a important to the reliability of the analogy for many people. While I don't share the same sensibilities, I'm interested in how it came to be important for people. I get that from a narrative, or a just-world sense, it's easy to see how two comport, but I'm curious how people other people view this and why is it so important? Is it something that "just makes sense" or does it follow from first principles, and if so which ones?

It might help to analogize with some other examples: say for instance I get into a car crash with another driver and am compensated by an insurance agency. It makes no difference to me that the money comes from the insurance account rather than the other person involved. The end result is the same for me - I can repair the damage. Would it seem as though other people are much more concerned in the other driver paying the obligation themselves? Or perhaps there are other reasons?

The more that I think about this, the stranger it gets. It feels like a categorical imperative-type argument to justify their own obligated existence.