Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.

What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.

The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn't "eternal damnation" (an idea that wasn't really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.

The existence of a consequence also doesn't establish whether or not you're a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an "eternal reward/punishment" as a consequence that goes above any individual actor's failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.

That's why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the "honor system" and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.