There is much to unpack in your thoughtful reply. My most urgent response is that selfishness ruins everything, and it is the corruption caused by selfishness that gives many of the drives, emotions, and patterns of thought a bad name. For example, "male ego" is an essential part of male psychology that enables males to function under high stress and overwhelming danger. But "male ego" perverted by selfishness can manifest in ugly, evil ways. No one complains about the role that male ego probably played in Edison's laborious development of the electric light bulb.
So I would offer that pride isn't the problem. The problem is selfishness.
Another aspect of the issue is that to a great extent, morality is only relevant within a group. It is not relevant when warriors from two groups are fighting on a battlefield. In such contexts, pride in one's people (group) can be viewed as a "battlefield emotion", as can hate. In such contexts, feeling hate and feeling pride in one's group can be decisive in enabling the warrior to conquer his fear and fight selflessly for his group.
The relevance I am pointing to is how pride is used to excuse immoral behavior. This doesn't mean that pride is inherently evil or a bad thing. It just means that people have become prone to excuse immoral behavior based on pride.
Immoral behavior here is synonymous with wrong action. In order to know what wrong action always is, it is best to know what right action always is. Right action is any action that does not harm another. The only exclusion to this absolute is when it happens during the course of defending immediate harm from being inflicted on themselves.
My disdain comes from the blind obedience of order followers. Order followers, from the voter to the policeman and the soldier, perpetuate hell on earth by just doing what they are told. Right action is superior than any command, rule or regulation.
We are united by our concern for morals. Let this be more important than any difference between how we see the details or the implementation. Here's how I see it:
I don't think that any simple rule such as "cause no harm" is adequate. In the human body, white blood cells have only one job, and that job is to "cause harm" to cancer cells and other invaders. For another example, as an activist, I work for positive social change. But any social change will harm the people who are vested in the status quo. With any change, there are both winners and losers, people who gain, and people who are harmed.
Similarly, the situation with police officers and military personnel following orders "blindly" is problematic. Anyone who has ever served on active duty in either situation will quickly tell you that it is essential to follow orders blindly (within limits); otherwise, there is no ability to change a course of action quickly and decisively as the situation evolves.
On a personal level, I interact with police officers regularly, even daily, during a "speech operation" on the street. I don't expect police officers to do "the right thing". I certainly don't expect them to "cause no harm". I have several times told an officer that I want him to do whatever his supervisor has ordered him to do. I want him to be a "good officer" in the sense of doing the job exactly the way his supervisor tells him to do it. Then I tell him that any issue that I have is not with him personally; it is a conflict between me and the agency's policy.
Perhaps the best that can be said is, "Don't be a cancer cell".