The article explores whether some philosophical ideas are too harmful to propose, presenting a utilitarian perspective that evaluates ideas based on their moral impact. It suggests that perceived harm can warrant the decision against proposing an idea, necessitating a nuanced assessment on a case-by-case basis. The author discusses the challenges of determining who is morally relevant and how to weigh potential benefits against harms. While examples of inherently harmful ideas abound in imagination, the article concludes that practical evaluations are necessary for rational discourse.
A utilitarian approach suggests that a philosophical idea should only be proposed if its benefits outweigh the harms for morally relevant beings.
Fictional philosophical horrors, akin to poisoned food, serve to illustrate that some ideas may be too harmful to propose, regardless of theoretical interest.
Collection
[
|
...
]