 Well Carol Gilligan and these other guys have suggested that the ethics of care really aren't relevant to impersonal relationships, the only relevant to personal ones. Well let me ask you, do you think that's true? Is there any relevance that the ethics of care have to impersonal relationships? Well before we answer this question it's probably a good idea to figure out what this means. If the ethics of care is relevant to impersonal relationships then there's something of what it means to care for strangers with people with whom we are not familiar with, not familiar with on a first name basis, we're not friends or family with, they are just part of the faceless masses. So what would it mean to care for strangers? So one question we could ask ourselves is how are we currently treating strangers? How do we currently behave towards those with whom we do not have a personal relationship? Well let's think about some instances. So think about some folks that we perhaps don't approve of, that we think their behavior is captured online or maybe you see it in person, maybe say chewing out a member of the managerial staff. We often, I mean this entire culture devoted to this online, of criticizing folks like this, we call them by a name and we judge them for their actions. Maybe how these people behave online is something that we don't approve of, we think are somehow not measuring up to standards of behavior that makes somebody a full person. And again we tend to criticize, we tend to judge and condemn such individuals. Is that really caring for them? Our society these days is marked by groups that are very angry at each other, that have severe differences to one another and how do they engage in those differences? Well usually it's by some kind of name calling. And while the ethics of care is certainly not something that's completely transparent that we've got figured out, I think it's relatively not controversial to say that this is not how you care for another person. If you disagree with them, in a caring relationship, you try to work out your differences by something other than name calling. If the ethics of care is really relevant to how we treat each other and in in-person relationships, then this behavior has to stop, then this behavior would change. Now as we've noted before, the ethics of care is not obligatory, right? You are not obligated to engage into a caring relationship with another person. This is how the care of Gilligan is emphasized. This is something these other philosophers have emphasized. This is not a mystery. So you're not obligated to engage in a caring relationship. But one wonders how different our society would be if we did. After all, our society is marked by a great deal of differences. And currently right now, we do not treat these differences kindly. Most of our debates, represented by these two animals here, are marked by anger, derision. When two groups of people, each representing the other, each representing one of these groups, when they come together, it is not a happy occasion. And our society is quite literally being torn apart. Now we're not obligated to change this, and at least in some ways, you might think, at least according to the ethics of care, we're not obligated to change this. But one wonders maybe we should anyway. After all, let's not pretend that things are going well. And if they continue to go in this direction, well, we might just fall apart.