INTRO

Do you care for someone? What does it mean to care? Are there any consequences to caring for
someone? Is caring conditional or just a humanistic trait? The ethics of care, also known as care
ethics, is a moral theory that holds moral significance in the fundamental elements of human
relationships and dependencies. "Care" is more commonly characterized as behavior or virtue
than as a philosophy in and of itself. It comprises looking after our environment and addressing
the needs of ourselves and others. It is motivated by instances of being cared for as well as
idealizations of self, and it is based on the desire to care for individuals who are reliant and
vulnerable. It addresses the significance of everyone having a voice, and being listened to
thoughtfully in their own right and on their own terms.
Care ethics is one of the normative ethical theories developed by feminists and environmentalists
in the second part of the twentieth century. Care ethics represents how we perceive ourselves in
relation to others, and it is thought that the origins of morality may be found in human
relationships that give rise to concerns about injustice and irresponsibility. It is a relational and
context-bound feminist philosophical stance on morality and decision-making. Care ethics aims
to preserve connections by contextualizing and encouraging the well-being of carers and
caregivers within a social network.
The ethics of care draws our attention to the need for responsiveness in interpersonal
interactions. Care ethics acknowledges the relevance of caring motive, emotion, and the body in
moral judgment, as well as reasoning from particulars. This moral theory encompasses both
theories about the essence of morality and normative ethical theory. In contrast to ethical theories
that rely on principles to emphasize moral behaviors, such as Kantian deontology and
utilitarianism, the ethics of caring approach is not designed to be absolute and indisputable.
Now let us talk about one of the most prominent figures of Care Ethics…
Nel Noddings was an American feminist, educator, and philosopher best known for her
work in educational philosophy, educational theory, and care ethics. Nel Noddings worked in a
variety of educational settings. She worked as an elementary and high school mathematics
teacher and administrator for seventeen years before earning her PhD and starting her career as
an academic in the fields of philosophy of education, theory of education, and ethics, specifically
moral education and ethics of care. Noddings' successful work was matched by an equally
successful personal life. According to infed.org, Noddings considers herself "incurably
domestic," not just because she and her husband raised ten children, but also because she values
"order in the kitchen, a fresh tablecloth, flowers on the table, and meals ready for visitors." 'I
prefer having pets and kids around,' she continued. She also stated that "feminists sometimes find
it difficult to admit such things matter to them." She has described her early educational
experiences and close relationships as crucial in the development of her philosophical position,
with early relationships with caring teachers inspiring her passion for her later work.
So, what really are the fundamental concepts of Care Ethics?

The key to understanding Noddings's ethics of care is to understand her notion of caring and
ethical caring in particular.
Noddings believes that it would be a mistake to try to provide a systematic examination of the
requirements for caring; nevertheless, she does suggest three requirements for caring. She argues
that the carer (one-caring) must exhibit engrossment and motivational displacement, and the
person who is cared for (cared-for) must respond in some way to the caring. Noddings's
term engrossment refers to thinking about someone in order to gain a greater understanding of
him or her. Engrossment is necessary for caring because an individual's personal and physical
situation must be understood before the one-caring can determine the appropriateness of any
action. 'Engrossment' need not entail, as the term seems to suggest, a deep fixation on the other.
It requires only the attention needed to come to understand the position of the other.
Engrossment could not on its own constitute caring; someone could have a deep understanding
of another person, yet act against that person's interests. Motivational displacement prevents this
from occurring. Motivational displacement occurs when the one-caring's behavior is largely
determined by the needs of the person for whom she is caring. On its own, motivational
displacement would also be insufficient for ethical caring. For example, someone who acted
primarily from a desire to accomplish something for another person, but failed to think carefully
enough about that other person's needs (failed to be correctly engrossed in the other), would fail
to care. Finally, Noddings believes that caring requires some form of recognition from the cared-
for that the one-caring is, in fact, caring. When there is a recognition of and response to the
caring by the person cared for, Noddings describes the caring as "completed in the other"

Nel Noddings draws an important distinction between natural caring and ethical caring.
Noddings distinguishes between acting because "I want" and acting because "I must". When I
care for someone because "I want" to care, say I hug a friend who needs hugging in an act of
love, Noddings claims that I am engaged in natural caring. When I care for someone because "I
must" care, say I hug an acquaintance who needs hugging in spite of my desire to escape that
person's pain, according to Noddings, I am engaged in ethical caring. Ethical caring occurs when
a person acts caringly out of a belief that caring is the appropriate way of relating to people.
When someone acts in a caring way because that person naturally cares for another, the caring is
not ethical caring. Noddings claims that ethical caring is based on, and so dependent on, natural
caring. It is through experiencing others caring for them and naturally caring for others that
people build what is called an "ethical ideal", an image of the kind of person they want to be.
Feminist undertone of Care Ethics

Care ethics has an impact on many fields. However, there have been feminist objections. Some
are concerned that it perpetuates a sexist stereotype by encouraging or assuming that women
nurture others, even while society fails to respect caregivers as they should. Although it was not
necessary for feminine moral theory to be aligned with the ethics of care, those writing in the
feminine tradition have come to associate care and responsibility to others with a female-
gendered approach to ethics and individual rights and justice with a male-gendered approach to
ethics. Feminist philosophers have maintained that deontological, utilitarian, and justice moral
systems are founded on male experience. According to Nel Noddings, women's ability for caring
is a human strength that can and should be taught to and expected of men as well as women.
Caring is thus both men's and women's societal responsibilities.

Moral and Legal Obligations

Some might argue that it is ethically wrong to witness someone in need of aid while
refusing to offer it. Many would argue that it is our ethical obligation to help in any way we can,
even if it is as easy as picking up the phone and dialing 911. The idea that someone might
possibly see someone in pain, maybe even someone who is dying, and yet do nothing defies
basic moral convictions. Amos N. Guiora, a law professor whose family were Holocaust
survivors, authored a book titled The Crime of Complicity: The Bystander in the Holocaust in
which he stated that not only do all persons have an obligation to help others in need, but it
should be a crime not to. Guiora believes that the Holocaust might have been averted or lessened
if those who stood by and did nothing had taken action to prevent it or, at the very least,
attempted to protect Holocaust victims. He contends that witnessing a rape or crime is complicity
in that crime. Guiora does not advocate that everyone should step into every perilous scenario
like a comic book superhero or put themselves in risk, but rather that simply calling the police
may assist, and should be a legal requirement.
In the Philippines, “good Samaritans” or persons are considered those who rendered
volunteer work during emergencies must be protected by law from reprisal. The Good Samaritan
Act is supposed to encourage good Samaritans who provide reasonable assistance in an
emergency by protecting them from liability. A “good Samaritan” is defined by House Bill
No.1949 as “an individual performing volunteer services who does not receive compensation to
reasonably assist a person in an emergency”. On the other hand, “emergency” would refer to “a
situation requiring immediate attention and remedial action involving a sudden, unexpected, and
impending threat to life, health, or safety of a person”. The Good Samaritan Act would protect a
good Samaritan for harm caused by an act or omission if: a) The good Samaritan was acting in
an emergency at the time of the act or omission; b.) If appropriate or required, the good
Samaritan was properly licensed, certified or authorized by the appropriate authorities for the
activities undertaken in an emergency at the time of the act or omission; and c.) The harm was
not caused by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed by the good
Samaritan. It seeks to support individuals who sought to assist during times of emergencies by
protecting them from legal liability if their aid was useful and appropriate to the situation’s
de-escalation