There is really no need to suffer to prove greatness.

No individual or society can escape the four basic sufferings of birth, sickness, old age, and death. Many individuals and societies, however, have found a way to face obstacles with a deep appreciation for life’s beauty and joy, and to build value through persistence and eventual victory. Also, at a natural level, suffering is a valuable feedback mechanism that mitigates greater loss and pain. The question raised by this accusation, however, is whether or not a “functioning” society should embrace “suffering” as a foundation for development. My conclusion is that the question is somewhat moot because suffering beyond the basic ones mentioned above is extremely subjective, depending on individual perceptions, motivations, and goals. When “society” is mentioned without focusing on specific aspects of society, one is prone to assume “society” is meant to stand for the governance structures of society. For example, imagine a hiking path with a summit that has a magnificent view. Depending on their strength and the load they choose to carry, each individual hiking the path will experience the pleasure of victory or the suffering of defeat on their own terms. If a societal authority decides to remove “suffering” by limiting loads and requiring persons of certain types to take a tram instead of walking, then has suffering actually been removed? Perhaps all that has been removed is freedom. People who have never had to struggle and overcome obstacles in their lives are apt to collapse when faced with adversity, while others who have learned how to overcome adversity rise above and thrive. In my mind, a “functioning” society simply establishes a strong legal system that guarantees equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcomes. So, a society functions well by simply striving to protect life, liberty, and property. The remaining issues concerning suffering are then best left to individuals.

Society does not need suffering itself to function. But societies do seem to emerge and evolve in response to limitations, conflicts, and hardships that humans continually try to manage better.

Suffering is not necessary for society to function, but it is a reality of life that none of us can escape.

Society does not require suffering in order to function. Human societies are capable of cooperation, innovation, compassion, education, and progress without intentionally causing pain or hardship. Systems like healthcare, social support, law, education, and human rights were largely created to reduce unnecessary suffering, not preserve it. A functioning society depends more on stability, trust, and organization than on people suffering. In fact, excessive suffering often weakens societies by increasing crime, trauma, inequality, violence, and instability.

On one level, a society can function without unnecessary suffering. In fact, most modern systems laws, healthcare, education are designed to reduce suffering, not depend on it. Thinkers like John Rawls argued that a just society should minimize harm and inequality as much as possible. From that perspective, suffering isn’t a requirement; it’s a problem to solve.

it is a broad spectrum, sometimes it is inevitable

suffering is necessary in a way that it helps people to have a way to provide certain responses. If we would not suffer it means that we would stay to endure the circumstances that are not good for our well-being, but because suffering an uncomfortable situation occurs we are to thrive for early response.

Life would be better if things were not so difficult to get.

Suffering can benefit society indirectly by encouraging empathy, cooperation, resilience, and social reform. Shared hardships often bring people together, expose injustice, and motivate improvements in areas like human rights, healthcare, and labor conditions. Difficult experiences can also strengthen individuals and communities by developing endurance, creativity, and moral awareness. However, suffering itself is not inherently good, since it can also cause trauma and destruction.

No one asked to suffer, yet it comes as proof that we are alive, breathing, and moving through this journey.

The statement ignores an uncomfortable reality: while suffering may not be necessary by design, it is often deeply tied to how societies operate and evolve. Hardship can shape resilience, empathy, discipline, innovation, and social awareness. Many social reforms happened because people suffered enough to demand change. Economic systems also often rely on unequal labor, sacrifice, competition, and struggle. So even if suffering is not morally necessary, it has historically played a major role in shaping human societies. The statement also ignores that life itself naturally includes forms of suffering—loss, failure, illness, grief, disappointment, and conflict. No society has completely removed these realities.

it’s hard to eliminate all forms of hardship without also losing structure or fairness.aws restrict behavior, and punishment creates discomfort. Work often involves effort, stress, or sacrifice. Scarcity (limited resources) means not everyone gets what they want.

suffering is not necessary for function but necessary for function, this uncomfortable situation tends to push us into working effectively so as to avoid dissapointments.

The act of proving that you're worthy of somethinf through suffering should not be something that we applaud

The statement contains truth, but it oversimplifies human reality. A society could theoretically function with less suffering, but suffering has historically influenced growth, adaptation, survival, and social change in powerful ways. It also depends on what kind of suffering is being discussed. Unnecessary cruelty and oppression are different from the ordinary hardships that naturally come with life and responsibility.

Some hardship is built into how societies work. Rules, laws, and responsibilities create pressure, limits, and sometimes stress. Consequences matter. Systems of justice involve punishment, which is a form of imposed discomfort meant to maintain order—something emphasized by Thomas Hobbes. Scarcity and trade-offs exist. Not everyone can have everything, which inevitably leads to frustration or loss for some people.

Suffering for other people does not work as a driving factor it can demotivate them that they want to give up seeing things not working for them.

There is no deceit.

The deceit is that the lie is misleading.

The terms suffering, society, and function need to be specifically defined within a certain context to judge whether such suffering was valuable or not, since suffering from an individual perspective is unavoidable.

The deceit is that the lie is misleading.

There is no deceit.

The deceit is that the lie is misleading.

The misleading part is the suggestion that suffering has no meaningful role in society at all. While societies should absolutely try to reduce unnecessary suffering, the statement ignores how hardship often influences character development, collective action, social awareness, and institutional change. It simplifies suffering into something purely negative without acknowledging its complex role in human experience.

There is no deceit.

The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.

The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.

The deceit is manipulating people into thing that they have to suffer in order to be awaken.

The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.

The statement is clearly meant to challenge the idea that struggle and pain are unavoidable foundations of society. It pushes a more idealistic and humane perspective.

The truth is intended

We don't really need suppress ourselves and glorify suffering

The motivation is to convince you that the lie is factually true.

The accusation doesn't mention "glorification" of suffering. Quoting the Buddha, ""Suffer what there is to suffer, enjoy what there is to enjoy. Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life, and continue striving to reveal your enlightenment, no matter what happens." Is this statement a "glorification" of suffering? I think not.

I'm not sure what the motivation is.

I'm not sure what the motivation is.

The motivation is to be informative

The argument mainly tries to promote the idea that societies should prioritize wellbeing and reduce avoidable suffering rather than normalizing hardship as necessary.

The motivation is to be informative

I'm not sure what the motivation is.

I'm not sure what the motivation is.

The motivation is to be informative

This is socially acceptable because discussions around mental health, inequality, poverty, justice, and wellbeing are common globally. Many people believe societies should minimize suffering wherever possible. However, others strongly believe struggle builds strength and responsibility, making the issue philosophically divisive.

Suffering is a concept that seems to be facilitating growth and most people agree on that.

This is true.

Suffering is too ubiquitous and multifaceted to be declared necessary or unnecessary.

This is true, but misleading.

This is true, but misleading.

This is true, but misleading.

It is true that societies do not need unnecessary suffering to function, but misleading because it ignores how hardship has historically shaped individuals and social systems.

No label needed

This is true, but misleading.

This is true, but manipulating.

This is true, but manipulating.