Science and morality are separate spheres of reasoning. Only by recognizing them as separate can we have them both. If discrimination is wrong only if group averages are the same, if war and rape and greed are wrong only if people are never inclined toward them, if people are responsible for their actions only if the actions are mysterious, then either scientists must be prepared to fudge their data or all of us must be prepared to give up our values.
From Stephen Pinker
Actually I do sense that sometimes. If people kill others for respect or money, we would more easily condemn the act than if people kill others for more mysterious or exotic reasons like religions.
Is it true? Any explanation on that?
Or may be it's the other way around. Say I kill someone for money. Ah you can't blame me. Everyone wants money. That's very understandable.
Which one is more likely inciting blame and responsibility? Mysterious motives or natural motives? And why?
No. It's not an ethics question. It's a psychology question. Do humans vary? If I am a lawyer, for example, should I make my client's motives mysterious? If so why would that work?