The problem of attributing responsibility, imputation of guilt or encouragement always involves a subject who performs an action. The requirement for the attribution of an action to someone, the identification of the actor and its motivation can be a problem. Definition of the action in terms of morality can also be a problem, but the most difficult task is the search for the criteria of morality as such. It is assumed that the interpretation of an action and the definition of a subject are directly related to the procedure of reasoning. Conversely, the search for the criteria of morality, norms, grounds for reasoning depends on the interpretation of actions and situations. The action can be regarded, on the one hand, as a public event and, on the other hand, it is a list of motives, intentions, goals. Moral philosophy, thus, closely overlaps with the area of social sciences. Moral reasoning is part of the daily communication practice. Reasoning is believed to aim primarily at the continuation of communication and mutual understanding, which suggests agreement on general principles and rules. The communicative nature of reasoning and interlocutors' rationality stand out as the main characteristics of discussion. It is further argued that reasoning and interpretation overlap one another at the crossing of the ascending and descending ways in ethics, that is in the transition from a case to the rule or principle, or in the application of the rule to a particular case. As a rule, the second option (descending) prevails in the construction of moral theories and development of various ethic systems. In this case, the definition and justification of the universal principle as the main moral reason is the immediate task of ethics. This certainly does not preclude the interpretation of the principles themselves and development of a consensus on its interpretation and application. When talking about the ascending from an individual case to the general principle, we face applied ethics. The task of applied ethics is in the clarification and refinement of the normative principles when they come into conflict with a separate incident or situation. Their task is to determine whether the case is covered by a certain rule. We can also say that the problem of the construction of reasoning is to "find" a rule covering a fact which, theoretically, is correctly described. In this case, the fact and the relevant principle must be interpreted. Interpretation is tightly woven into the process of reasoning at the level of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. In the daily practice moral condemnation is based on the understanding and interpretation of the motives and intentions of the subject who has committed an unjust act. The new interpretation of the facts and arguments that the "condemned" adduces in their own defense can change our view on the situation. In this case, we need some assurance that we are in common practical life where our views on what is acceptable or not acceptable in the community always coincide. We rely on the rules that, supposedly, are not arbitrary. It is the social and communicative nature of morality that involves not only the formal proof of correctness, but also the reasoning aimed at achieving agreement and understanding.
