What is the moral of the story, anyway?
It's certainly not an argument in favor of total non-interference, since a) Archer elected to ease the suffering of the Valakians, while at the same time b) dropping a huge hint that there is a cure to be found.
Like I said, I don't think it's meant to have a clear-cut moral. I think it's meant to present a situation where two of the lead characters, who come from different worlds and belief systems, find their values in conflict and wrestle with the consequences. The idea was not to take one character's side over the other, but to explore the conflict itself. A lot of good stories are about the questions, not the answers. They're about making us think, not telling us what