Abstract

The question of what constitutes a “good life” has remained one of the most enduring and debated issues in philosophy. This paper presents a minimalist, relational approach: a life can be considered “good” relative to other lives, independent of subjective experience, moral judgment, or notions of meaning. The definition is intentionally stripped to its logical core: a good life is a life that, when compared to other lives, is objectively better according to observable relative conditions. Absolute minima or maxima (“the worst” or “best” lives) need not be determined; only relational comparisons are necessary, similar to how motion in physics is meaningful only relative to a reference frame. This preliminary framework provides a logically consistent definition of a “good life” and emphasizes the role of social comparison as the reference point for evaluative judgments.