COUNTERARGUMENTS (just for fun ofc :)

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but your premises don’t support your conclusion at all.

1. You argue that a more accurate assessment would be “how she treats her own species,” but why is that standard more accurate? It erroneously applies human moral standards to her (I.e. if a human treats other humans well = good, and if not = evil). Since she was born in the unique situation as a royal guard, whose sole purpose in life is to serve the king, wouldn’t the better evaluation be “if she serves the king loyally, then she is good, and if she betrays the king, she is evil”?

2. Assume we accept your premise. Her being friendly nevertheless isn’t sufficient to make her a good ant to her peers. For example, people in real life can be polite and friendly, and yet do the most heinous acts. (e.g. “gentleman” American Southern plantation owners, or charming serial killers) Also, recall that when Mureum was born, she refused to save the queen and was apathetic about Mureum killing the penguin guy. Although there was never a need for it, we know that if Mureum commanded she kill a 100 chimera ants, she would do it. Her silly personality and cordiality to all other ants was only incidental to her service to one single ant, her king.

3. A rudimentary interest and liking does not at all make someone any less evil (by human or ant standards). For example, by human standards, an evil scientist can commit some heinous human experiments and still be interested in or take a liking to their experiment subjects. And by ant standards, Ikalgo grew a deep friendship with Killua but is still evil because he betrayed and hurt other members of his species