Before we get into this, I just want to make it clear that I'm still philosophizing, and I am not 100% sure about all of my formalized ideas. My philosophies do change from time to time (you can see examples in the update log at the root page).
The goal of a moral system is to consciously understand the rules by which conscience operates. Protagonism therefore posits that a number of moral values exist, and an action's merit (the value that actually determines how good a person is) is based on its exhibition of these values and the temptation overcome to do it (no temptation or negative temptation means the act is not virtuous at all). More rigorously, the formulas are (obviously given the information the agent had at the time):
Any action that upholds the below values to a greater extent than it violates them (it's inevitable that they come into conflict sometimes) is "good" and the amount of moral merit is the temptation overcome. You might object that this means it's morally better to do a worse but still good action if it's harder. That loophole is plugged by the axiom of necessary motivation - in short, such a thing isn't possible and if you think it is it's because you have an emotional incentive to take the less good action, such that it isn't actually the harder one.
Any action that violates the below values to a greater extent than it upholds them is "evil" and the degree of guilt (negative merit) is equal to the degree of net violation of the values times the ratio of that to the temptation. The reason for this formula is so that: A) raising the magnitude while keeping the ratio the same raises the guilt; B) A sufficiently high temptation can render a horrible act essentially nil, and likewise in reverse.
One more thing about vice: obviously, to compare virtue and vice, these formulas require us to establish a "baseline" 1:1 ratio of viciousness to temptation. This ratio is exemplified by the act of causing X suffering to another in a way that doesn't violate their rights (this could be done with emotional suffering for example) to gain X pleasure for yourself when the two of you are offset in faring just so that the emotional factors pertaining to inequality would balance out exactly. As per the virtue formula, any good act that requires a sacrifice of X magnitude puts you back to moral neutrality, regardless of how much effect it has.
One thing I need to make clear is the rule of prudence: when necessary, we should sacrifice any of the below goals in the short-term for the long-term strategic interests of the cause (ie. of making up for it later). This isn't on the list because it doesn't get weighed against the others; it oversees the others.
However, I believe that things closer to the present are worth more than things farther in the future. This is the reason for the occasional apparent exceptions to prudence I make, such as any situation where you give up reusable power for a sufficiently large good effect that won't ripple into the future. Without this principle, it would seem that a good person should devote all of their effort to accruing power so they can do more good in the future (or pass on the power to someone who will), and never give any thought to helping people in the short-term, since there's no telling how long the world will be here and it has a positive feedback loop where the more power good people get over the world the easier it becomes to gain more and so this would always be the best investment.
Now, a few definitions before we get going:
Redemption is to exhibit enough virtue to balance your sin.
To "repent" is to intend either (depending on context) to redeem yourself or to make restitution. (See the Notes on Choice on Morality for an exploration of the concept of intention.)
And finally, the list, in no particular order.
Rectitude - good behavior aims to help the innocent and hurt the wicked.
The available vocabulary was unfortunate here. I see fit to count compassion and retribution under one label in this context since they never conflict on the same person in the same situation, but I couldn't find a better word than this to mean both of them.
Consent - good behavior aims to give people the option to not interact with others, provided they afford others the same option or are repentant for not doing so. Longer exploration here.
The virtue of self-respect that I used to believe was prime is a corollary: it counts as a violation of Consent to let your own rights be trampled, but it isn't punishable, because you're still affording others their rights.
Agency - good behavior aims to give people interaction with the world.
I deliberated for a long time on how to phrase this. I wanted to name the value freedom since that word is such an ideograph for me, but the concept is broader than that. Autonomy is very important in morality (far more so than can be explained by it being encompassed by Consent), but, for example, leaving someone in a situation where they have full control of their own experience but are trapped in a pocket dimension would still be a horrible thing to do, aside from the emotional suffering you'd inflict. Agency is the broader concept. Meaningful interaction is very important not just to people's psychological health but as a moral value. That's why it would, for instance, be exempt from being taken away as a form of retribution.
Truth - good behavior aims to inform everyone.
Fairness - good behavior aims to minimize debt.
When fully understood, this encompasses non-discrimination. Benefitting someone else creates a debt from them to you, so if you're going to benefit multiple people, you should spread it out, all other things the same; because you should address the biggest problems first. (Just like you should focus Compassion on the people who need it most even when the ostensible degree of benefit you're doling out is the same either way.)
Purity - good behavior aims to avoid deriving pleasure from degrading the sacred.