hokusai

But if we don't, we are doing no more than describing (say) the results of an experiment in chemistry which we happen to be observing.

("How many 'Jews' did you say were gassed at Sachsenhausen? Really? How interesting. Write it up, why don't you?"}

I see why you think this must be a problem for non-theists and non-'soulists'. I think it is one of the most common reasons why people take the position you do.

In essence you are saying there is no justification for claiming an animal (a human animal) has done wrong if that animal is just a collection of molecules. This turns on your definition of wrong-doing. It seems that for you, wrong-doing is only that which is done by things with 'immaterial substances' ('souls', as it were). Without wanting to get into an extended discussion of morality, the fact is that wrong-doing does not have to be defined this way. For me, wrong-doing is an act by a human animal which [and then add in here various qualifiers about the nature of the act]. There is no need for such an animal to have a soul.