Ultimately it just means that we have a way to make sure that We the People aren't being punished by laws that we don't consent to being held to.
It puts power directly into the hands of the typical American citizen, which is why our legal system is terrified of it. You don't have to be rich or well-connected to sit on a jury. It also effectively limits what can be done using that power to what a "random" (and presumably representative) selection of the community agrees to. That's what a "jury of your peers" was supposed to be all about.
I'd say that nullification makes it possible for people to truly govern themselves and that makes it an inherently righteous system.
It's the righteousness of the people who make up a community that is questionable, but even imperfect people deserve democracy and the right to self-govern.
It's all an edge case. Nullification isn't an intended right, it's an unavoidable loophole. It's the necessary consequence of a system where no one is allowed to tell a juror how to vote or demand that they justify their decision: there's no way to maintain those requirements and also punish jurors for ignoring the law completely, so we just ask them to pretty please not do that.
And that's fine. It's certainly better than letting anyone legally pressure jurors. Democracy and freedom are all about compromise. I'm just saying, it's not corruption for judges to prefer jurors who don't ignore the law.
IMO the biggest role of the jury is to blackball the state's conveyer belt to imprisonment on a case-by-case basis. It really needs to become harder than it is for the state to put someone in a concrete and iron box.
Nullification is no more inherently righteous than a butcher knife.