In truth, I believe that life has a spiritual dimension, that my life has purpose, blah blah blah, but I find it useful on occasion to temporarily 'forget' that I believe such things.
In a general sense, liking life forms that don't actively threaten us, just enjoying there being other life, should be useful for all life, since all life kind of depends on the "tapestry of life" which sustains it as well. Doesn't mean it is so, but it wouldn't surprise me. I say this a lot but that's kind of my point, "why should this be ruled out, why would that be surprising", not so much making a positive claim as debating an implied negative one.
In this [1] thread, someone linked the concept of biophilia, and I had to think of this discussion as well: if we allow for humans liking life "just because" or "for some reason", we should allow for that in animals, too.
Bees don't really have a good rule for "giant, landscape-sized creature carefully disassembling hive -> sting that asshole". It's just not something a bee needs to have a rule for. They do essentially have a rule for "giant animal destroying the hive -> sting that asshole", but that's because smashing a hive also smashes some bees, and they do have a rule for "smell a smashed bee -> go freakin' nuts". So the rules for barefoot beekeeping boil down to "be extremely careful and don't squish any bees".
Most of the bees' defenses are actually focused on other insects, especially other bees. Robbing by other bees is a much bigger threat than robbing by the landscape. A bee's sting is only fatal to the bee when it stings something like a human, and its stinger gets stuck in our skin. When a bee stings another bee or other insect, it can sting as many times as it likes. So it's more of a surprise to the bee when stinging us proves fatal, than some sort of altruistic suicide mission for the greater good of the hive.