In this paper I review the way Peter Strawson frames the discussion of moral responsibility in a place that I call closer to the human. I consider to be reactive attitudes, proposed by Peter Strawson, a fundamental piece to understand what is the moral responsibility. This perspective is not without opponents, is for that reason that I will submit an interpretation of the idea of Strawson which aims to answer some criticisms fall on this way of conceptualizing relationships. I will build the defense around interpretation of moral responsibility that understands the assignment of moral responsibility as a kind of language that acquires its meaning as used. Similarly, I raise the question whether it is possible to think of a system of moral responsibility that is justified to the extent it is used. I believe that this idea makes sense with something called virtuous circularity. The question that comes to light immediately is how is it possible to use a system of moral responsibility to be justified to the extent used? Actually, not only the extent used, but in the course in which humans recognize each other and engage in certain practices. To understand and justify this question I raise an interpretation of Strawson's position I call Modesta Interpretation of Moral Responsibility.
