I think what people are upset about is that he got a happy ending (no pun intended) by the end. What he did was understandable, but very very wrong, and he shouldn't have ended up with it all working out so neatly.

Some people want that, some don't.

Go look up like college class debates on the Dudley and Stephens case, as a real world example. The Dudley and Stephens case involved four men who were stranded at sea in a lifeboat and after nearly three weeks with no food and little water, two of the men, Dudley and Stephens, decided to kill the young cabin boy with them who had slipped into a coma. They wanted to kill him so the remaining three could eat him and drink his blood to stay alive, fearing that if they waited until he died naturally, he would become inedible. They survived, were eventually rescued, and upon returning to England, they were arrested and charged with murder... After a monthlong trial, the two men were convicted, establishing the precedent that 'necessity' was no defense against murder charges. Public sentiment was strongly in the men's favor, however, so the court only sentenced them to six months imprisonment rather than the normal punishment for murder at the time, death.

Almost always its like a 50/50 split with half the class thinking what the men did was absolutely morally wrong, never justifiable, and they ought to have been punished, some saying even more severely. Others thinking that what they did was understandable and morally justifiable, better one die than four, and that it was wrong that the men were punished.

There is no objectively correct decision when dealing with human moral dilemmas. Everyone has different opinions on morality, on utility, on everything.