Eduk: For quality of life to objectively be 'good' it cannot rely on feelings or opinions.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, an objective assessment of quality of life would not be based on strictly personal feelings or opinions but on facts about human nature. Feelings and emotions are of course an aspect of human nature that must be taken into account and we would do so by considering the feelings and emotions that are common to all people (and sentient beings).
That is what objective means (i.e., a conclusion that does not rely on feelings or opinions), when everyone disagrees with you on your definition of objective it is because they understand the meaning of objective to be different to your understanding of the meaning of objective.
Only those who, like yourself, think there is only one definition of objectivity will disagree with me. More informed people understand that the meaning of objectivity differs according to the subject of inquiry, e.g., objectivity has a different meaning in psychology and the social sciences than it does in the physical sciences, and the latter "empirical" form of objectivity has no moral component.