Remember when we were taught that some words like “perfect” had no comparative or superlative forms? You have to say “more nearly perfect” or “most nearly perfect” instead of “perfecter” or “more perfect” and so on.
The terms “better” and “best” should be used with care and with agreed on units of measure. Abstract “better” doesn’t make sense.
It reminds me of a buddy who had the idea that since you couldn’t actually compare stuff well with “better” you should try to come up with things that ranked roughly the same on differing scales. For example, he would say, “My dislike for this movie is matched only by my love of a good pizza.”
I think some of the blame goes to advertising. As I learned in the wonderful, now out-of-print book I Can Sell You Anything, they have to be careful using “Better”, because if they actually say that they’re better than Brand Q, they have to be able to justify it (whereas they can always call themselves “Best”, in part because the criteria are ill-defined. The Law and advertising form a weird relationship), so they end up comparing themselves to an abstract “other”, or themselves five years ago, or, pretty often, to nothing at all.
“Buy Grelp! It’s better!”
People hear this repeated constantly, and get the idea that it’s an acceptable way to convey meaning, rather than a way to weasel out of legal attacks.
I think the notion of “truth in advertising” has been stretched to its logical extreme by products such as “Head On” when they don’t even make claims about what it is! “Apply directly to the forehead” is all you get. What does it do? Remove zits? Give you a headache? Give you wisdom? Remove all doubts about the Federal Government? Cure you from TV ads?
Didja hear the one about “Head On II.” The make no direct claims, but imply it’s a topical, Viagra-like substance applied directly to the . . . well, you know.
Well, I’ve not tried a barbed-wire dildo up the arse, but I think eating cheese on toast is better - at least I used to be sure about that, now I’m not so certain.