Not Convinced Determinism Makes Sense of Moral Responsibility. Convince Me It Does

[pocaracas]

That makes sense but to clarify are we only morally responsible to the extent that we get caught and punished for immoral acts (both those immoral acts we committed and the moral ones we failed to do)? Or is there some transcendent truth, as rationality might be considered, something part of natural law, that we are in some way responsible to (karma, perhaps, in its truest sense) EVEN IF the present is always determined by the past?

I don't know.
If I had to guess, I'd say that currently most of us hold human life and well-being above most other things. Does this look like a transcendental truth, or very down to Earth?
The threat of punishment, or other consequences which may not be positive to the individual, is a way to try to have those individuals who would otherwise misbehave to keep (or, at least, to appear to keep) this view of humanity. Some still misbehave, nonetheless.

As to your thoughts on moral duties, I think you ran into the inevitable problem with your slavery example. Of course, we both view that as morally reprehensible now, but was it *actually* morally wrong to view slavery as a duty then (or again at some point in the future with enough brainwashing) if its nothing more than societal projection?

Mankind's collective knowledge is full of trial and error.
Some of that knowledge is perpetuated as unwritten behavioral rules which pass from generation to generation.
Slavery was probably ok way back then... not so ok, more recently, but tolerated... and now it's inhumane. Still, some people do it, and some people accept being slaves...
The caste system in India is, to most westerners, outdated... but it's still in effect... It seems societal moral guidelines don't reach everyone on the planet equally...