The question of whether some philosophical ideas are too harmful to even be proposed was raised in a philosophy teaching group on Facebook. The essay that follows is a quick ramble rather than a complete theory of harmful ideas.
When addressing this question, a good starting place is determining who would be harmed and the nature of the harm. From the perspective of those who perceive themselves as harmed, the answer is likely to be “yes.” But this leads to the matter of whether a perceived harm warrants not proposing an idea.
An easy and obvious way to approach this moral issue is utilitarianism: if proposing a philosophical idea would generate more harm (negative value) than benefit (positive value) for the morally relevant beings, then it would be too harmful to propose. Ideas would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis using a plausible account of value, a plausible system of weighing these values, and a plausible account of who is morally relevant. As would be expected, people can come up with different assessments in good faith. The obvious counters to this utilitarian approach would be arguments in favor of other moral systems, such as a deontological theory of ethics.
The discussion of harmful ideas would also require setting some guidelines about the sort of ideas and harms that should be given serious consideration. For example, it is easy to make up a horror story of a philosophical idea such that understanding the idea would lead to madness, catatonia or even death. Fortunately, these fictional cases are easy to address: these ideas would be too harmful to propose. The moral justification would be analogous to arguments one might use to show that handing out poisoned food to people would be wrong. While such ideas might be possible, this seems to be a purely theoretical concern: fun for horror stories but as worrisome as the possibility of being mauled by werewolves. That said, there is the science-fiction case of Roko’s basilisk that some might use as an example of an idea too harmful to propose. But there seems to be no evidence for any meaningful harm caused by this idea. As such, it is best to focus on ideas that could cause actual harm.
Real philosophical ideas do cause harm. Obvious examples range from ideas that create mild discomfort in students to philosophical ideas that have been used to justify brutally oppressive governments. These ideas are already out in the wild but can be used as the starting point for discussions about general categories of new ideas. We should, of course, not make public an example of an idea we suspect might be too harmful to propose.
One general category of ideas would be those that would cause psychological distress in people, perhaps because these ideas are about those people. To use a real example, a philosophical idea that gender is set by Platonic universals and is thus an objective feature of reality could cause some dismay and distress, especially people for those whom a choice of gender is important. To use another real example, the philosophical ideas used to argue for atheism (such as the problem of evil) can be distressing to people of faith. These sorts of situations fall under existing concerns about ideas that cause similar distress, especially in the classroom. That is, these new ideas could be assessed in the context of how we already handle existing ideas.
Another general category of ideas is those that could cause social, economic, or political harm if proposed and acted upon. As a real example, the philosophical underpinnings of fascism and racism (such as they are) have a role in the harms done by these views. As another real example, those who possess great wealth and power would contend they could be harmed by the philosophical ideas underlying socialism, social justice, anarchism, and other views inimical to concentrated wealth and power.
These ideas should be assessed in a way like how one should assess new technology: what harm could it generate directly and what are likely scenarios in which it can be misused? While people often overestimate and underestimate harms and benefits, engaging in an assessment is still preferable to letting it loose in the wild and hoping for the best. We would also need to keep in mind the obvious: what is harmful to some can be beneficial to others. To illustrate with a sci-fi example, if a philosopher has an idea that would effectively undermine capitalism and create a Star Trek style world, then this would be perceived as extremely harmful to the ruling classes yet would be objectively beneficial to humanity. The rulers would, one assumes, would see this idea as too harmful to propose.
In closing, there can be ideas too harmful to propose but we lack a well-developed account of such ideas. At least for now.
Philosophy knows no boundaries, and it isn’t for timid people, let’s say weak people. Yes, philosophy can hurt. As the great Leopardi wrote:
”Philosophy is terrible, because it shows us the ugly part of life, which is real.”.
Philosophy is only for people who have guts, like yourself. It isn’t for the timid or the weak of heart. It really is the boxing ring of the mind. The philosopher is constantly questioning everything and everyone, no matter what it is or who they are. Yes, one has to be careful. I believe there’s a limit, and I myself don’t want to go near it. For example, reading about nihilism would be terrible for me. I came across some such works and immediately closed the books, never to open them again. Even I have thought about these things.
The philosopher is the intellectual version of the martial artist who, accepting the pain and the discomfort, becomes stronger, and superior to others. Not an easy path, and most certainly, not for everyone. In fact, only for the few.
The philosopher does with his thought what a martial artist does with his body, and he isn’t like everyone else. Sure, one might see a philosopher with other people, but chances are, he isn’t like the rest of them.
So I think that the problem is not that some philosophical idea is ‘too harmful to propose’. Rather, most people won’t have the guts and the intelligence needed to contemplate the thoughts proposed by a philosopher, let alone the skills needed to interpret them as well as possible.
Let’s be frank: most people are stupid. Not because they can’t learn, but because they don’t want to, and also, because they are conformists. For example, they quarrel and moan on social media, complaining about what some other fools like them wrote to them, etc, when the solution would be to delete all these stupid accounts and do without ‘social’ media entirely. Why do they think they need it? That’s so stupid. Or, people marrying people who have a bad character, then they get abused, etc. Well, hello? Why didn’t you learn to avoid bad people? You chose your ‘partner’, no one chose it for you.
Philosophers might make mistakes, but they learn from them. They don’t really live like everyone else.
Also, philosophers are lean in body because they are lean in mind, and train with both, though they train the mind more than the body, but still do not neglect the latter. I came across someone on youtube who said ‘I am a philosopher’ and had a beer belly, and I was almost laughing. Didn’t even check his lecture or what he had to say. Sure, that seems a prejudice, but there’s nothing I can do about it. Philosophers are lean.
But above all, I believe philosophy can never be evil. Fascism, Communism, etc, that’s not philosophy, rather the cancer of it. To me anyone who has an extreme ideology, can absolutely never be a philosopher. When anyone says: ‘The world should be like this, and everyone should be like that!’, I know I am hearing a megalomaniacal idiot. Philosophy observes the world and tries to understand it, it doesn’t try to change it. At most, the philosopher tries to change himself, and even that is a very tall order.
But of course philosophy can be acted upon, but then it becomes mere politics, and to me that isn’t philosophy anymore. That’s what I think, but I don’t know much about how philosophy influences the world, only how it influences me.
To me, a philosopher is always, essentially, a good person, with a solid character, who does no harm to others. Socrates always comes to mind. Otherwise one can never, ever be a philosopher. Real philosophy might show ugly stuff, but is in itself good, and well intentioned. Unfortunately, the ability to think is often seen as a danger by those who are incapable of thinking, or of being decent people.
Matters of axiology and deontology are in the eye of the beholder, and, ethics and morality are at an all-time low, IMHO. If any of us are moved to live by a code, we had better be prepared for various degrees of pushback. If people are “in it to win it”, they are expecting that outcome. The rancor in the Middle East is demonstrative. Trump’s outburst and use of a profanity are signal. Both of the adversaries have an axe to grind…have carried that axe, re-sharpened again and again, since before many of us were born. I did not grasp this until I received a history lesson from a philosopher friend in the Netherlands. Now, there are things I more fully grok. Such as when you point an accusing finger, there are four pointing back at you. Old folk wisdom, see…old folks have more to remember.