Hennie Lötter

I provide a philosophical analysis of the claim that ICTs are necessary preconditions for the eradication of poverty. What are the links between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and poverty? I first define technology and then give a brief depiction of ICTs. Thereafter I define poverty and give a brief explanation of its context and causes. Next I discuss the relationship between poverty and ICTs in three paradigm cases: [i] the role of ICTs in poor societies, [ii] the effect of poor ICT knowledge and skill of individuals in highly developed technological societies, and [iii] the impact of impoverished ICT knowledge and skills on the rich, powerful, and intelligent ones in society. I propose a procedure for decision making about the appropriation of ICTs by individuals and societies. I assess the claim that both access to ICTs and effective use of them are preconditions for the eradication of poverty.

In this article I respond to the thoughtful criticisms of my book articulated by Gillian Brock, Thaddeus Metz, and Darrel Moellendorf. Their critical questioning offers me an opportunity to reformulate aspects of the book so that I more accurately say exactly what I had in mind when writing the book. The first section contains a reworking of my definition of poverty to eliminate any ambiguity and demonstrate what kind of comparative judgements the definition allows us to make. The second section looks anew at the multiple moral sources for our obligation to eradicate poverty. In the third section I focus on issues that could hinder attempts at eradicating poverty. One is the lack of accessible knowledge that might be too demanding to acquire. The other is the possibility that all attempts to eradicate poverty might have to be put on hold until oppressive capitalist development has prepared the circumstances for a more socialist distribution of resources. I argue that neither of these concerns should hinder the eradication of poverty.

How can citizens be made just? I focus on how modern constitutional democracies can entice, convince, and guide their citizens to become just. I rely chiefly on Rawls's theory of justice, as well as the work of sociologist Derek L. Phil lips. I argue that internal control by citizens themselves is the best option. This view is attractive because every citizen can play a part in establishing and maintaining the public conception of justice by being role models, engaging in dialogue with fellow citizens, or by simply doing their part in maintaining just institutions.