I disagree completely. You seem to be confusing money/worth with value. If someone manages to redirect money towards themselves without creating a new economic resource, then no new value is made.
Avoiding systems that don't create value would help us live in a world with more value in it. That's why considering this is very productive, and helps moral people avoid wasting precious resources on zero sum games.
What I'm trying to say is that systems don't exist because they are 'good', they exist because they survive. When trying to interpret the world, 'value' is a much less powerful explainer than survival.
Also, I do think that knowing whether something actually creates value or not (is a positive-sum, negative-sum or zero-sum game) is definitely helpful in understanding large systems. i.e: It helps predicting whether a society will succeed or fail, by seeing how much of it is wasted on negative/zero sum games.
Societies will always succeed for a while and then fail. It is the cycle of life and energy in the economy. There is "value" created by HFTs that is used by HFTs and their families. It helps them survive and reproduce. This does not mean value is created for society overall, but it certainly makes society more complex. The more complex an ecosystem/economy is, the more likely it will be able to adapt to future environmental changes.
You're again using the confused notion of "value". The HFTs are taking value away from others to themselves, not creating new value (at least if we reject the extra liquidity as a positive value).
Societies will succeed more or less based on various parameters, one of which is whether they generate value to sustain themselves or not.
Avoiding systems that don't create value would help us live in a world with more value in it. That's why considering this is very productive, and helps moral people avoid wasting precious resources on zero sum games.