Incidentally, the "it's wrong to intervene" argument is NOT the argument Phlox uses for not giving the cure, it's that the disease is a genetic disorder, and so the "gods of evolution" have slated for the Valakians to go extinct.
So Phlox's rationale for his psychopathic actions is not "imperialism," it's pseudo-science.
And the differences between giving a cure for a disease and a military intervention are so numerous that I can't believe anyone would even try to compare the two.
Did Archer have to consider casualties of troops here? Or civilian deaths as collateral damage in battles? Or political balance-of-power calculations?
In other words, what was it costing him to give the cure? What was the dilemma?
There was none.
You distort Phlox' argument via not mentioning the Menk and then ask what the dilemma is? He presented it in a crystal clear fashion which one cannot say about your intellectually dishonest distortions.
the Menk don't factor in, giving the cure does not "hurt" the Menk, as they are free to pursue their civil rights struggles at any time. Unless you're arguing that providing medicine to white Americans in the 19th century "hurt" American Indians or blacks.
Also, I don't think you understand ethics, which have nothing to do with "coldness" or lack of emotion, I don't know where you get that weird notion.