If people / cultures / civilizations vary in the level of goodness and badness in them then it follows that there should be a distribution of societies that are significantly more good than bad, societies that are average, and societies that are significantly more bad than good.
If a society is significantly more bad than good it can be true that you could still find something good in them but it becomes questionable if it is worth an individual to study the society to extract this good part from all the bad.
Thus I would conclude that it might not be really worthwhile to learn anything from the Aztecs.
One historian I read said if Cortez had shown up 50-100 years later they probably would have ended up facing those those guys first instead of the Aztecs and had a really bad time.
Good and bad are time and culture specific. In 50 years, many things that we do everyday now will be "bad" and many things that we see as "bad" will be "good."
IMHO people / cultures / civilizations aren't all bad or all good, there's always something to learn about them.