First, not all suffering makes lives more meaningful. It's the process of suffering through something and prevailing or even being overwhelmed and yet later finding a way to get back up that gives us meaning.

Second, we do not have the right to make others' lives more meaningful if they do not want them to be. The state's core role is to protect our rights. Libertarians and conservatives define rights negatively, while liberals also speak of positive liberties in addition to negative one, but this is the core premise of liberal democracy. What we do with these rights and liberties is up to us.

Of course there are exceptions: this is a big argument for having national service or conscription even in countries that can afford professional militaries and don't have hostile neighbors. I happen to disagree strongly with the idea of any kind of national service or conscription, but I don't find it something that should be dismissed outright and without debate.

More to the point, we do voluntarily inflict suffering on ourselves all the time: most obvious being physical exercise, pain of childbirth, but less obviously difficult academic programs (e.g., EECS at UC Berkeley or CMU). Indeed, we pay a great deal of money to have others inflict suffering on us as long as we're able to extract meaning from it.

I saw the post as more "roll with the punches". And yes, that phrase trivializes some terrible experiences. But I feel like that's what Dr. Victor is getting at. The most successful people are those who are willing to reframe their perspective and create goals/silver linings around that perspective.

In the (arguably) skewed world of Silicon Valley I think that's a valuable thing.

> should we set out to inflict suffering on others for their own good?

Why is that your job?

Even if it's good for them, you don't have to be the one to do it.

And the same applies to everyone else, plus governments.

Your logic is sound, but your premise is false.