conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What could be a title for a book about Introducing, Political, Philosophy with the genre: Politics & Social Sciences, Philosophy?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'Introducing Political Philosophy'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the first five paragraphs for this book?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Introducing Political Philosophy
  The legal punishment of felons is justifiable, not because the State requires retribution, but because such punishments act as a deterrent on other would-be future criminals.
  Utilitarianism can be made into a moral guide for individuals. But it is a political philosophy helpful mostly to liberal governments trying to frame domestic policies.
  Critics of Utilitarianism argue that its materialist approach undervalues the complexity of human nature. Human beings are intellectual and spiritual beings, as well as pleasure-seekers. Human happiness is subjective, relative and so impossible to quantify. Utilitarianism is also wrong to dismiss motives as irrelevant. Future consequences are not always predictable in the long run. Utilitarianism can also sanction the breaking of traditional moral rules, if, by so doing, greater happiness results.
  It has helped to make governments – the "distribution agencies of welfare" – into the exceedingly powerful institutions that they are today.
  So Mill is sometimes thought of as a "Rule Utilitarian" – you obey those rules that experience has shown tend to produce large amounts of happiness, rather than judge each individual act on its utilitarian merits.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is four more paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Rawls maintains that nearly everyone would want to live in a society in which individual liberties were respected and where justice was universal and public.
  Rawls concludes that all rational individuals would prefer societies that engage in some form of wealth redistribution. This fact should be considered by real governments when they frame domestic policy. But if each rational individual decides on the basis that he or she could be "any person", then it's difficult to see how this is a "contract" with anybody else.
  Nozick's right-wing libertarians would probably still vote for a society that rewarded individual effort and self-sufficiency. They would be prepared to accept the risk of poverty, in exchange for high rewards and no state interference. Does this choice somehow make them "irrational"?
  Countless 20th-century citizens have had to survive especially unpleasant totalitarian political regimes, both Fascist and Communist. Some political philosophers maintain that the roots of all such "closed societies" are already present in the philosophies of Plato, Hegel and Marx. But actual modern "Communist" states bore little relation to the theoretical ideals of Marx.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the last five paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: But many feminists now maintain that "equality" is always defined by "universal" norms which remain essentially masculine.
  Athenian male citizens could only participate in their democratic lives because of disenfranchized armies of women and slaves. Even recent political philosophers like John Rawls still cling to the odd idea that ideal rational observers can somehow discard their gender as "clothing".
  Our postmodern capitalist societies are still dominated by a liberal ideology which believes that freedom is best guaranteed by free-market global capitalism and minimal state interference. Most of us Westerners have now internalized capitalism, so that we have come to think of ourselves more as consumers than citizens.
  Healthy democratic societies are cemented together by a moral consensus based on pre-capitalist values of trust and mutual support, whereas capitalism is motivated by self-interest and competition. It is difficult to see how this circle can ever be convincingly squared.
  In the end, all theories are attempts to describe and explain reality, but political theories are unlike scientific theories in that they are impossible to verify conclusively. This is because, ultimately, they are theories about who we are or how we should live together. That's why there are so many different kinds of political philosophy. Some philosophers believe in the possibility of objective rational answers to political problems based on a knowledge of fundamental human needs, goals, purposes and relationships. Others insist that this sort of knowledge is impossible in the face of wholly unpredictable individual preferences and desires. Much political philosophy may, in the end, turn out to be inescapably subjective – merely well-argued expressions of personal preferences. But that doesn't mean that some theories cannot be more productive than others by helping to change how we see ourselves and our political societies. But we probably **do** have to accept that the modern state, with all of its surveillance and military technology, is now virtually unchallengeable and "democratic" only in a very limited sense. "Politics" will have to change profoundly if citizens are to regain any real power. Mature adult individuals might eventually decide to ignore huge and impersonal modern nation states and decide instead to meet face-to-face in small assemblies to discuss those policies and practices that determine their everyday lives.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Reverse the sentences.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Mature adult individuals might eventually decide to ignore huge and impersonal modern nation states and decide instead to meet face-to-face in small assemblies to discuss those policies and practices that determine their everyday lives.. "Politics" will have to change profoundly if citizens are to regain any real power. But we probably **do** have to accept that the modern state, with all of its surveillance and military technology, is now virtually unchallengeable and "democratic" only in a very limited sense. But that doesn't mean that some theories cannot be more productive than others by helping to change how we see ourselves and our political societies. Much political philosophy may, in the end, turn out to be inescapably subjective – merely well-argued expressions of personal preferences. Others insist that this sort of knowledge is impossible in the face of wholly unpredictable individual preferences and desires. Some philosophers believe in the possibility of objective rational answers to political problems based on a knowledge of fundamental human needs, goals, purposes and relationships. That's why there are so many different kinds of political philosophy. This is because, ultimately, they are theories about who we are or how we should live together.
  In the end, all theories are attempts to describe and explain reality, but political theories are unlike scientific theories in that they are impossible to verify conclusively. It is difficult to see how this circle can ever be convincingly squared.
  Healthy democratic societies are cemented together by a moral consensus based on pre-capitalist values of trust and mutual support, whereas capitalism is motivated by self-interest and competition. Most of us Westerners have now internalized capitalism, so that we have come to think of ourselves more as consumers than citizens.
  Our postmodern capitalist societies are still dominated by a liberal ideology which believes that freedom is best guaranteed by free-market global capitalism and minimal state interference. Even recent political philosophers like John Rawls still cling to the odd idea that ideal rational observers can somehow discard their gender as "clothing".
  Athenian male citizens could only participate in their democratic lives because of disenfranchized armies of women and slaves.But many feminists now maintain that "equality" is always defined by "universal" norms which remain essentially masculine