It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

The issue I'd argue is that there is a universal trend for things that are maladaptive and adaptive aka dharma or adharma. If different civilizations started with the objective that survival and improvement of the nation within was the greatest good, they'd all arrive more or less at the same solutions. Just like how all liberal regimes have arrived at the same policies: hate speech laws, media gaslighting, LGBT indoctrination at school, and feminist laws that penalize men and masculine behavior.

I'd argue that this objective is the obvious goal for any civilization or group as groups that don't prioritize such goals will be defeated in competition with groups that do. A type of natural selection of ideologies.

Religions went through this natural selection already. Islam, Christianity and the other great faiths survived for thosuands of years because they promoted good outcomes for their adherent populations: high fertility, modesty, chastity, love of kin, sacrifice for the community etc.

Religions that did not produce good outcome died off. For example, in Russia, there was a cult in which men chopped off their balls. This cult didn't survive as it produced eunuchs and did not increase in numbers or strength.