Strange thread.
'Brutality' is just one of ten thousand different emotional devices that can be used within music. It seems strange to considerit somehow less valid or worthy than all the rest. The quality of music should be judged on it's ability to invoke emotion in the listener, not which emotion it manages to invoke (or indeed how technical it is. There are bands that play only three and a half chords that have great emotive power, and other widly-widly bands that inspire only boredom).
Very heavy, 'brutal' bands can be among the most powerfully emotive musicians out there, and many put a great deal of thought and textural subtlety into their work (listen to 'Jane Doe' by converge, for example). There is as much innovation and creativity at the heavier end of the metal spectrum as anywhere else in metal, because bands who really mean what they say are forever looking for new ways to say it.
Sure, there's an awful lot of dreadful heavy music out there, but they're bad because they're, well, bad, not because they're brutal. There are plenty of bands that suck just as much without being brutal.
In the clear light of day, appreciation of any kind of music is subjective. Different strokes for different folks (I, for example, think metalcore bands like LoG suck more than any other groups on the planet. They simply aren't heavy, though they try to convince everyone that they are, and have the emotional/artistic integrity and intensity of spinal tap). But in the end, any music that is made to fullfill a genuine creative, cathartic need, brutal or not, technical or not, is always going to be a thousand times better than music made to show off/make money/impress girls.