Acting on immediate impulses of hunger, pain, or fear is not what most people would consider "goal-oriented". In fact, when we criticise someone, rightly or wrongly, for being not very goal-oriented, we tend to be speaking of someone who leads a rather hand-to-mouth existence, going through life simply reacting to whatever comes his or her way, rather than taking control of his or her life and setting actual goals. This lifestyle is not necessarily wrong, and if approached with reasonable expectations, might actually bring considerable pleasure to an individual. It just illustrates how goals and life are far from synonomous.
As for you "can'ts won'ts and don'ts", I suspect you live by a fair amount of them yourself, at least if you live a normal human existence on planet earth. From the laws of gravity to traffic laws, there are plenty of things we experience in the negative, whether by our own choice or the impositions of others/society. That's why language is so accommodating of it.
This is quite a claim. This forum alone is full of threads highlighting, often celebrating, sometimes criticising, the many differences around us: from people (types, races, gender, career, religion, musical tastes, fashion sense, etc), to locations, to political philosophies, to food and exercise regimens. It is quite a leap to smear this all away into homogeneity.
You are of course welcome to your beliefs, but believing something does not make it reality.
As for the OP: assume for the sake of argument that life has some inherent meaning. Will that meaning make sense and be important to each individual person? What if some of us find that meaning at odds with our personal values, goals, or simply what makes us feel good? In this sense, the ability for each person to apply his/her own personal meaning to life seems to be a good thing, and a source of creativity and personal agency, rather than a cause for depression or angst.