I understand what you mean, Eu. Forced morality out of fear of punishment is not true moral choice.
A few years before I started to seriously question all things JWs held dear, I was struck by how Armageddon was used like a sword of Damacles over our heads and how similar that attitude was to other religions using the threat of hellfire to impose their will on others. I came to the conclusion that, assuming the concept of inherent immortality was untrue, if God saw fit to execute me at Armageddon (I'd prefer He didn't, but it's up to Him), then I'd be dead, wouldn't I? I wouldn't 'miss' anything - I wouldn't exist. While everyone was enjoying the blessings of Paradise, I wouldn't know anything about it. So, in that respect, the personal fear of Armageddon evaporated. What remained was moral choice. I chose to submit myself to God - whatever happened to me at the big A. Likewise, if I die a premature death or of old age: if the Bible is bunkum, and there is no Paradise, what will I know? I'll be dead anyway. Finito.
The key to free moral choice, IMHO, is love. Love of the Bible's message, love of the Person we think is behind the message and desiring His friendship, and love of our fellowman. Any benefits are a bonus. True friendships are not based on fear.
However, this raises a question. Do young children, although loving their parents, obey them out of that love, or out of fear of punishment? We can't get away from the fact that fear of penalties is often the strongest motivator for young children.
However, as they mature, we hope they'll see the love, wisdom and justice behind parental directives and they'll want to comply, rather than focussing on what would happen to them if they didn't. I suppose that analogy can be extended to those who choose to submit to a higher authority.
Sorry if this is a meandering post. You've got me thinking, Eu, you've certainly got me thinking.