I'm curious about the moral underlying an objection like this. Why do you care about whether the prize exactly reflects his will? And why specifically for this prize, when your objection has applied for most of a century across every field?
And since the literature committee tends to be run by extremely pretentious artists they don't like idealism anyway. Artists are supposed to be tortured postmodern souls you know.
A lot of people want Haruki Murakami to get the prize, but I don't think his work would pass this.