Guys, ‘suffering is good’ is literally a Christian thing. Mother Theresa used it as an excuse not to treat people because ‘suffering brings you closer to God’.

It’s bullshit, of course. It was made up as an excuse for treating people badly and (surprise!) making more money that way.

But that’s where OP gets the idea from. Religious indoctrination.

Suffering isn’t good, but good can come from suffering, but certainly doesn’t always.

A harsh breakup can lead to personal growth.

A loss of a job could lead to a better job and possibly better money management strategies.

But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death – no good, no meaning.

Mostly the idea that suffering is good is more common in religious ideologies that need an excuse to explain why their powerful god doesn’t step in and fix things.

I reject the premise, and I doubly reject the conclusion.

How the hell thinks suffering is good? That’s cult level thinking.

Does anyone actually believe that suffering gives life meaning? I’m sceptical.

Suffering isn’t good. The growth that can be achieved through suffering can be good. There is a very big difference. Suffering doesn’t guarantee growth. Experience gained through suffering might not always be good (we may become jaded or cynical, or worn down).

Putting that aside for now, hurting others is bad. Inflicting suffering on others is not good, and doing so to try and force “personal growth” in a direction you desire is absolutely not good. That’s strange, cruel, controlling behaviour. That’s sort of like playing god.

When people say that suffering builds character, or reference bible passages like Romans 5:3 (And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience;) (apologies, I don’t know similar teachings from other faiths although I’m sure most faiths have a similar concept to this somewhere in them), they are typically talking about a sort of impersonal “suffering”. The death of a parent, sickness, poverty, that kind of thing – and crucially this idea is often separated from “blame” and is instead a sort of “faceless” suffering. It could be set up like this so that people can focus inwards or on something spiritually, rather than getting stuck in a cycle of blame or revenge, but other times the suffering in question is literally blameless, such as a parent dying of old age.

Either way, the key part in your question is that experiencing suffering is an unfortunate but inevitable rite of passage, and hopefully a person will learn and grow as a result, but that intentionally causing suffering is a choice to hurt another human and is bad. It’s sort of two separate things, really.

I’m aware that I answered a slightly different question, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say suffering is good because it “gives life meaning”?

I mean yeah, I would answer your statement as “yes”. But I would prefer to challenge a fundamental assumption within your question, “suffering is good”. Suffering is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Without the experience of suffering, experiences of non-suffering would lose some or all of their meaning. Without winter we cannot appreciate summer, and vice versa.

Some humans feel that it adds to life like: “It builds character” or “pain makes him a real man”. Or that Suffering could enable people to appreciate the good but no, hurting people in general is unessessary because the world does that daily. Actively harming humans is actually counter productive because too much suffering can turn them evil or into living husks/zombies due to too much loss.

Now there are select humans that would benefit from this as they seem have not been exposed to any hardships of the masses. Still the pain didnt give meaning. all it was is a catalyst to give a person empathy. Even then physical pain is not the solution it needs to be a series of emotional experiences/trials that can be overcome.

The only people I know where suffering is the meaning/point would relate to something like karma or something like a slaanesh cultist who couldn’t live without pain because without it they have no life.

Schopenhauer’s Theory of Human Suffering and Lack of Meaning: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/history-of-nihilism-in-the-nineteenth-century/schopenhauers-theory-of-human-suffering-and-lack-of-meaning/E64B94DBB5CC35F61046073595377F25

He seems like a happy chappy.

In the context of the premise, absolutely not, because there is plenty of suffering to go around already.

Post-traumatic growth is a thing. No need to cause more suffering, it’s locally available and plentiful in most parts of the world.

If and only if suffering is good. I’d argue it’s not.

Occasionally experiencing suffering will lead to character growth, but mostly in dealing with future suffering of yourself or someone else. Not ever suffering and not needing the growth would be better.

But there is suffering in the world and occasional small doses is dealt out to everyone without anyone of us actively trying.

Your premise is wrong but you should watch Bojack Horseman and pay attention to Diane’s arc, specifically the episode Good Damage

So there are two flavors of Republicans…

1. Is the selfish narcissistic egomaniac who will destroy his own country to fulfill his own desires.

2. Are the people you described, pain is good. Hurting people makes them stronger or dead, either way it’s a good outcome.

Yes, that’s what a lot of rich people think. They’re helping people build character by acting like monsters.