The short answer is a resounding "No!"
It will certainly be harmful for some people. For example, those living on coral atolls may expect rising sea levels to submerge the coral (which, after all, formed when it was below sea level). Similarly, those living on coastal flood plains may discover why they are called "flood plains".
On the other hand, there are certain benefits to a warmer world. Warming results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans. The combination of warmth and higher CO2 concentrations leads to more robust plant growth, something that is necessary if we are to feed a rising global population. A cooler world just won't do it!
The world is now about 5ºC warmer than its mean temperature over the last million years or so. However, it is also now about 5º cooler than it was during the Holocene Optimum whch lasted from about 9 000 years BP to 5 000 years BP. The world's climate was certainly different then, as was the vegetation. For example, large parts of what is now the Sahara Desert had savannah and lakes – this was the period during which ancient Egypt flourished.
The Medieval Warm Period was the time when European culture flourished; this was the time when the great gothic cathedrals were built.
Conversely, it can be argued that attempting to combat climate change can be harmful. As Bjorn Lomberg has demonstrated, the cost of attempting to fight it is far greater than the cost of actually dealing with it when it happens. Top of the priority list for the Copenhagen Consensus are HIV/Aids, hunger, free trade and malaria; responding to climate change comes at the bottom on the grounds that it costs more than the value of the good that it does. Unsurprisingly, the AGW lobby despises the Copenhagen Consensus, and dismisses it with (largely) argumentum ad hominem.