I guess the idea is that if you would sacrifice the one for the many then you are a utilitarian (morality is about promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people).

If you would not sacrifice the one for the many then you think that there are other things that are important - common examples include justice, fairness etc. I guess this is most often associated with a Kantian view of morality (certain acts are considered immoral because they violate justice - for example) even though they promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

One could... Attempt to say that simply knowing (on coming of age) that a particular person (the child) is being scapegoated (which is surely unjust and unfair) would / could be harmful to the people who know this. Knowing this... And doing nothing... Well, I'd feel guilty, to be sure. Given that... How great can that society really be?

There is a similar case that comes up to illustrate controversy between Kantian and Utilitarian moral theorists. The case of the lonesome stranger:

(You aren't allowed to alter the case at all).

There have been a number of murders in a small town. The sherrif knows beyond all reasonable doubt that the murderer has recently died. The townspeople will have none of this, however. The sherrif knows beyond all reasonable doubt that the townspeople will riot if nobody is hanged for the murders. If the townspeople riot then many innocent lives will be lost.

There is a stranger who wanders into the town. The sherrif knows that the lonesome stranger has no friends and no family to mourn him.

Should the sherrif frame (hang) the lonesome stranger to prevent the townspeople rioting?

I wonder if peoples intuitions about framing the lonesome stranger differ from peoples intuitions about the small child. If they differ... I wonder what the relevant difference between the cases is...