I don't think anyone faults you for your English skills. I think you get an idea (which is great), you research it a little tiny bit (which is okay), you rush to get your thoughts down (okay if you are making a draft of your post), and you post without proofreading (which isn't good). Later, you often comment and sum up your question in a much more effective way, which is what leads me to the conclusion that you are rushing.
Having a lot of questions for the site is great, but having a moderate number which are attractive and answerable is even better.
Looking more at this example:
Are psychology and sociology dealing with the concept of “ethical” and “unethical”?
This is not very specific. I'm certain in the rich history of the field, someone, somewhere has looked into the "psychology of X", where X is a noun. This also betrays your actual question, which is asking something different, about morals and ethics.
Background is always very good for a question. Setting up the reader with your assumptions will help them know where to begin for an answer.
This image, from SE blog, synthetize the concept of "purity" in different sciences. If I should continue the list on the left side, I would add:
Philosophy, Laws making, Politics, Some part of Economy (i.e. macroeconomy studies), theoretical discipline and so on.
You're making an assertion here that is probably subject to quite a bit of argument, and introducing concepts that are irrelevant to your premise. That is, what does economics have to do with anything? So, you are taking us a bit off the trail.
Philosophy, as well as Laws and Politics tries to say what is 'right' and what is not. But all these disciples mostly lacks of any scientific and statistical support.
You're making a blanket statement here that is mildly offensive to anyone who designs and executes evidence-based studies in these areas. Remember that not everyone in philosophy or political science researches the material taught in Philosophy or PolySci 101. So, once again, you are confounding what you are really asking, and taking the reader off of the trail. No one expects you to walk on eggshells, but before you say "no one ever...", reconsider that someone probably does.
Are there branches of cognitive sciences dealing with the concept of ethic and moral?
Any question on SE that can be answered with "Yes." is likely not in-depth enough to attract any interest. This would be akin to asking "Can I interface with a database through Java?" on Stack Overflow. There's no meat to it, and no one with an expert knowledge of databases is going to find it attractive to answer.
The only example I can make to explain what I mean are the concept of Dark Triad and Prosocial
This starts down the right road. You are trying to make it more specific here. However, you've demonstrated that you've read a paragraph or two on a random site you've googled, not that you've done your due diligence before asking the question. How do these concepts apply to what you are asking about? Is it likely that someone will find this question later when they are looking for detailed information on these individual concepts?
All in all, I think your questions have good potential overall. Putting some additional time into them, both in terms of presentation and in initial research will draw some excellent answers.