According to infed.org, Noddings described herself as "'incurably domestic' not only because she and her husband raised ten children, but because she also appreciated 'order in the kitchen, a fresh tablecloth, flowers on the table and food waiting for guests'.

"[2] She had described her early educational experiences and her close relationships as key in her development of her philosophical position.

[2] Colleague Michael Katz described Noddings as "one of the most efficient people" he knows, a "consummate teacher–scholar," who lives according to the "do it now" philosophy and "never lets her status as a famous scholar and lecturer and author interfere with treating everyone with the same kindness, thoughtfulness, and consideration that she would expect people to show her, regardless of her status or position.

Noddings's contributions include the interpretation of scientific research into the roots of compassion, altruism, and peaceful human relationships.

Like Carol Gilligan, Noddings accepts that justice based approaches, which are supposed to be more masculine, are genuine alternatives to ethics of care.

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.

A person's ethical ideal is diminished when she either chooses or is forced to act in a way that rejects her internal call to care.

In brief, feminists object that the one caring is, in effect, carrying out the traditional female role in life of giving while receiving little in return.

Those who accept more traditional approaches to ethics argue that the partiality shown to those closest to us in Noddings's theory is inappropriate.

[6] The claim to care must not be based on a one-time virtuous decision but an ongoing interest in the student's welfare.

[7] The criteria are as follows: The overt or explicit curriculum in education is designed to meet the inferred needs of students, as they are those identified by teachers or individuals to improve the classroom learning environment.

[8] Students' inferred needs can often be identified interactively, through working with them one on one or observing their behaviour in a classroom environment.

[11] Overwhelming needs cannot be met by the usual processes of schooling and include extreme instances such as abuse, neglect and illness.

[11] As well, a student's socioeconomic status (SES) or dysfunctional family environment can cause them to come to school with needs that cannot be expressed nor met by educators.

To help meet those overwhelming needs of students, particularly those in poor neighborhood, the ethic of care philosophy dictates that schools should be full-service institutions.

[11] In turn, students in these situations are often forced into academic courses and fight an uphill battle, where they have to engage in activities that are difficult to focus on, based on their circumstances.

[11] People who are poor, perhaps homeless, without dependable transportation cannot afford to run all over town seeking such services, and often they don't know where to begin.

[11] Despite being aware of the overwhelming needs many students face, we force all children—regardless of interest or aptitude—into academic courses and then fight an uphill battle to motivate them to do things they do not want to do.

[11] Emotion has been aggravated[clarification needed] by the rise of professions with their insistence on detachment, distance, cool appraisal and systematic procedures.

[10] In regard to the education of the whole child, Noddings (2005) stated that, "We will not find the solution to problems of violence, alienation, ignorance, and unhappiness in increasing our security, imposing more tests, punishing schools for their failure to produce 100 percent proficiency, or demanding that teachers be knowledgeable in the subjects they teach.

Another criticism of Noddings's argument is that ethic of care may result not only in the exploitation of the caregiver, but also in a smothering paternalism.

[12] Goodin writes that,[14] "the trouble with subsuming individuals into relationships of 'we'ness is precisely that we then risk losing track of the separateness of people".