In terms of applying this philosophy to real life morality, I'd say you should steer clear as far as you can from that sort of idea because that path leads straight to "Hitler just cared too much about Germany."
In terms of using it as writing advice, I think it's a pretty useful tool for making your characters have more depth and solidifying in your mind exactly what their motivations are and keeping yourself consistent on their characterization. It can make your villains a lot more sympathetic if you can tie their reprehensible actions to a more understandable quality of theirs and it can make your heroes feel more flawed and human if you can show how their admirable traits don't always mesh well when reality hits.
But again, I would not use this philosophy for media analysis or real-world moralizing - strictly as a thought exercise for writing compelling characters,
Anyway, I'll try my hand at your unworkable examples:
Hostility -> A trait of a survivor in rough circumstances who has had to learn to be suspicious of strangers. This would work best in a setting where such tactics can be easily presented as beneficial (e.g. post-apocalypse, dog-eat-dog world). You would need to present tangible examples in the story that show how this personality is more effective than a more polite form of suspicion. A non-apocalyptic example could be characters dealing with pushy salespeople/conmen - the hostile character shuts them down immediately and never budges, while the more polite-yet-still-suspicious person still leaves openings for the salesperson to target.
Cruelty -> "Cruelty" is a pretty vague quality as there are a lot of ways to be cruel. There's the sort of average level of cruelty wherein somebody simply doesn't consider other people's emotions when they act or they intentionally try to hurt another person's feelings with their behavior. To the former, I would tie that into the archetype of the "emotionless logicbot" who is very good at analytical and logical reasoning but performs so at the expense of empathy. To the latter, I'd go the opposite, this is someone who is typically passionate and emotional, which allows them to empathize easily with others and drive themselves toward doing good things - but it also gives them a temper and an understanding of what sort of things would be most emotionally impactful to others. If someone gets on their bad side, they could use their emotional intelligence to really hit them where it hurts and their short temper would spur them to actually do so.
Then there's physical cruelty, something you would be more likely to see in an action series or something, where the character might enjoy inflicting harm on others. I'd return to the passionate, emotional character for this who is only driven towards cruelty when it comes to those who hurt the ones they love. For example, Gohan from Dragon Ball Z after turning Super Saiyan 2 is extremely cruel to Cell, but that stems from his pent-up emotional turmoil and the fact that Cell was an active threat against everyone he loved. Audiences liked that Gohan was a lot more emotionally involved than his father, but that emotionality was also the reason his anger could make him do harmful things.
Rudeness -> Again, "rude" can manifest in a lot of ways, but one way would be the sort of person who kinda dominates whatever social interaction they're involved in. This could be portrayed as exaggerated assertiveness, like you mentioned, show that this person is generally successful and their ability to always control the conversation is what led to it. They develop a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense sort of leader and the respect earned from others gives them a justification to continue acting in this way.
Sadism -> I would tie this in with the cruelty entry.
Just because the idea of "punishment" isn't inherent to sadism doesn't mean it can't be part of the background of why a character became sadistic. For example, in the Netflix adaptation of Daredevil, Matt Murdoch has a strong sense of justice that drives him towards beating up criminals who evade the law. However, he also derives pleasure from inflicting pain on people he thinks "deserve" it and it's very much portrayed as a flaw of his that ties into his greater noble goal. It leads to the complex question of "Does Matt use violence to appeal to his desire for justice or does he use the concept of justice as an excuse to satisfy his desire for violence?"
Jealousy -> Someone jealous of another's successes/privileges/accomplishments can have that tied into a generally ambitious personality that drives them towards achieving great things. The #2 fighter who's always jealous of the #1 guy is driven by their desire to surpass their rival, but it's still admirable how they put so much hard work into their achievement and this jealousy-driven ambition allows them to be strong enough to battle the bad guys.
