Intending to care

María Puig de la Bellacasa's interesting, but surprisingly dense book Matters of Care, is a passionate defense for rethinking care and ethics beyond previous anthropocentric standards. Ethics is a rather normative moral obligations, certain sets of rules of behavior, yet PdlB wants a "thick, pure, involvement in a world" (6). Care cannot be reduced to ethics she says and so it reles to an active involvement in the world, which she then connects to a certain intentionality, the experience of something about. PdlB goes further than mere experience and sees "to care" as an active, collective actor, opposed to the more passive and worrysome "to be concerned" (42). 

To care (and first be concerned perhaps) is a rather hard to define category in relation to intentionality, since one has to be aware to care. Especially when concerning care to non-humans (say animals) PdlB relates this to Donna Haraway in a sense of "Thinking-for". I have a hard time directly translating her thought to the world around us, since her thought is very noble and earnest, yet it seems such a paradoxical approach when she decenters a "we" and yet intents so personally, moving away from "the big picture" of traditional ethics and yet still "think for." 

At that, people (yes, humans in this case) can ask inhowfar their responsibility from (vanuit) their humanity and "human-ness" goes, for then they tend to anthropomorphize the Other/Non-human, through this thinking-for. Opening up the debate by breaking the duality of people vs. other is a thought that I love, but I'm completely stuck on her methods. How would we reformulate people-minded ethics when intentions clash? Think for example of the Brazilian Rainforest, in which ecological intents clash with economical intentions and Bolsonaro's (ridiculous) idea of Brazil's government's forest propriety clashes with the native tribes that still live their. At the same time, Bolsonaro forgets about wildlife and even the rights of the forest itself. 

Ethics-wise, this is an open and shut case, but then caring must go further than concerning. Where does PdlB directly place the active agency of care and reformulate ethics then?