It considers the needs of both the self and of others, and is not just interested in the survival of the self. There is more to this approach than simply the avoidance of harm. While not dismissing the importance of justice and fairness, Gilligan points out that moral decisions should also make allowances for differences in needs. In other words, need may dictate an obligation to care. Feminist author Joan Tronto points out that a more appropriate term for obligation would be responsibility.
Obligation implies formal relationships and agreements, and refers to explicit promises and duties.
Responsibility allows that we may have played a part in bringing about the circumstances that give rise to the need being expressed. In addition, responsibility requires that we ask ourselves whether we are the best suited to give the care requested. Unlike Kant's imperfect duties, which were to be followed only if nothing else prohibited the action, the ethic of care requires, at minimum, that need be recognized as an important component of human interaction. In responding, we must pay attention to the details of the need and to the outcome of our response on others potentially affected by our actions. This does not mean that every need requires a response.