The Overlord wrote:
Well Vulcans did come off as extremely unlikable in the first couple of seasons of Enterprise, they were "Flanderized" in that series to far more cold and unlikable in that series, that past series presented the Vulcans in a more postive light, so yeah in Enterprise the Vulcans were often extremely unlikable.
Heck Archer himself would often rant against the Vulcans and there were many episodes that wanted us to take his side against the Vulcans. So frankly Enterprise itself presented the Vulcans as unlikable.
The problem is, as the Star Trek series went, traits and ideas became warped and all consuming that they lost their original meaning. The Prime Directive started as a reasonable idea and then became inflexible dogma and the Vulcans went from logical and moral to cruel and callous. At first in Star Trek, there were episodes like "Patterns of Force" and "Who Watches the Watchers" that presented the PD in a positive light, but later there were only episodes that presented in a negative light, the positive ones were no where to be found.
Real ethics are always cold. I want people to have access to water, food and healthcare precisely because I am not compassionate and don't care about them.
If you frame the issue in warm, emotion-soaked words like compassion, cruelty, likability and so on you naturally arrive at the conclusion that the responsible folks are cruel, unlikable and not compassionate.
Just think about what would have happened if Vulcan had helped humankind in the late 21st century, then you might get it.
You claim that Archer and Phlox are wicked, evil psychopaths whereas all they do is follow future Federation rule number one. The Prime Directive is not about what you consider "positive" and "negative", it's not a feel good rule. Ethics never are about feeling good, they are about doing the right thing even when it is monstrous like killing a tyrant, taking someone's property or not assisting someone who asks for your help.