It seems that at heart, humans are a bit sado-masochistic. We justify struggle because it gives some sort of meaning. To quote Nietzsche on this sentiment:

To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities — I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not — that one endures.

Thus, when justifying why we continue the "Human Project" despite obviously experiencing struggles and the sub-par tediousness of repetitive acts in daily routines/work, we often cite that it is the initial deficit in our attitude/habits/skills that is necessary for us to learn to grow new attitudes/habits/skills. Thus it is rightful for humans to be born to experience deficits so that they can learn and grow. The goal is perhaps to either:

a) settle into life's repetitive routines punctuated by moments of "true" delight and then retroactively call this settling "happiness" (because, happiness is supposed to be a sense of fulfillment or some such). This is in some way a compensation or transactional outlook.

b) attain some maximum level of achievement from all the growth learned through the deficit-overcoming (no pain, no gain). This is in some way a "life is a process" outlook.


This "common sense" wisdom of deficits being good due to its leading to growth (or at least compensated by happy moments later on), like many things justifying life's inherent "goodness" for the human animal, is simply circular reasoning in the light of the counterfactual of never being born. Why put someone in a deficit (or to put a positive spin on it, "learning opportunities") to overcome in the first place? This question proves it is a retroactive coping mechanism to justify the inherent negative nature of the human experience. It can never be justified why putting someone in a position that they need to experience deficits or struggles is necessary for that person in the first place (i.e. prior to birth), ergo giving someone the "privilege" and "opportunity" to overcome deficits makes no sense.

The bigger underlying philosophical claim here is that suffering and harm cannot be subsumed in retroactive "carpet-sweeping". Struggle is negative, being at a deficit is negative. Growth may be positive, but at the behest of an underlying negative. Mushrooms may be edible and tasty, but they still come from shit. Actually, even this seems off. In the light of the counterfactual of never being born, the achievement of anything and experiencing "growth" has no underlying benefit in and of itself, but merely as a necessary means to get by once born.