I always find this sort of relativistic 'define good' comment somewhat irritating and pedantic - yes, we can debate the exact outlines of 'better' somewhat, but the gist of it is obvious.

In this case, reading a well-written novel is the fastest way to feel the same things as a person from a background different than your own, in a situation different from your own - and therefore increase both your empathy and your understanding of the human condition. What you do with that is up to you, but you'll have a hard time persuading most people that more understanding of others outside yourself isn't 'better'.

Good question! Using "better" for complex things without explicitly labeling the measurement axes is fluff (https://xkcd.com/833/).

Humanities is pretty much the embodiment of something that we could term subjective, no?

But having said that "better human being" was a term that came out of the age of enlightenment - intellectual, moral and physical growth were considered key. [1]

Hence books - with their ability to contribute on the moral and intellectual fronts - were always considered paramount.

Though with the fracturing of medial channels, books are just part of an ever larger mix. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitas#Revival_in_18th_and_...

Perhaps the authors mean to suggest that the consumption of other perspectives allows one to better empathize with others, and in so doing, become better-equipped to reduce their suffering.

"More experienced"