But what made the Valakians more worth saving than the Menk? I agree the outcome was not perfectly satisfying, but it's missing the point to talk as though there was an obvious or simple correct choice. If a viewer isn't comfortable with stories that have morally ambiguous situations, like "Dear Doctor" or "Tuvix" or "In the Pale Moonlight," that's their outlook, but that doesn't make it wrong for the writers to present something other than a simplistic black-and-white situation.
I'm baffled by this argument. "Dear Doctor" doesn't present moral ambiguity, unless you think "letting millions die vs. giving them a cure that you already have" is a morally ambiguous situation. The episode creates a false dilemma(the Menk aren't in danger, and nothing indicates that societal progress wouldn't lead to both groups co-existing peacefully eventually) and then it actually PATS ITSELF ON THE BACK for so "cleverly" presenting a fake dilemma.
It's like the dumb kid in class who says something stupid, but says it smugly because he's so convinced it was smart. You can tell that the writers were very pleased with themselves in creating this fake, nonsense dilemma from the way the episode plays out.