Mainstream theories of social welfare and liberal justice, grounded in the image of the independent and self-sufficient individual, do not provide sufficient conceptual tools to analyze situations in which social order collapses—particularly in conditions of war, organized violence, and large-scale crises. This study seeks to address this gap by comparatively examining two distinct theoretical frameworks: the “ethics of care” within contemporary Western social philosophy as developed by Carol Gilligan, and the “logic of relationality and fraternity” in Islamic–Shi’a thought. The research methodology is based on the principle of “functional equivalence,” and the comparison is conducted at three levels: anthropological assumptions, relational ethics, and institutional mechanisms.

The findings indicate that both frameworks, unlike dominant theories, conceptualize war as a “relational phenomenon”—the outcome of the breakdown of networks of responsibility, trust, and solidarity—rather than merely a conflict of interests or a failure of diplomacy. Furthermore, both frameworks define peace as a “relational achievement,” in which networks of care, fraternity, and mutual solidarity (takāful) constitute the social infrastructure for the reproduction of order. The study shows that the two frameworks are complementary: the ethics of care provides a precise analytical tool for understanding lived experiences of vulnerability and structural injustice, while Islamic fraternity offers a stronger normative foundation and more articulated institutional mechanisms (such as wilāya and takāful). Accordingly, a four-level “care–fraternity” model is proposed as a relational infrastructure of peace. The main policy implication of this study is that successful post-conflict reconstruction must begin, prior to any physical or political rebuilding, with the reconstruction of the society’s “relational infrastructure.”