While large language models (LLMs) have shown significant advancements in code generation, their susceptibility to producing incorrect code poses a significant challenge to the adoption of LLM-generated programs. This issue largely stems from the reliance on natural language descriptions as informal oracles in code generation. Current strategies to mitigate this involve selecting the best program from multiple LLM-generated alternatives, judged by criteria like the consistency of their execution results on an LLM-generated test suite. However, this approach has crucial limitations: (1) LLMs often generate redundant tests or tests that cannot distinguish between correct and incorrect solutions, (2) the used consistency criteria, such as the majority vote, fail to foster developer trust due to the absence of transparent rationale behind the made choices. In this work, we propose a new perspective on increasing the quality of LLM-generated code via program selection using the LLM as a test oracle. Our method is based on our experimentally confirmed observation that LLMs serve more effectively as oracles when tasked with selecting the correct output from multiple choices. Leveraging this insight, we first generate distinguishing inputs that capture semantic discrepancies of programs sampled from an LLM, and record outputs produced by the programs on these inputs. An LLM then selects the most likely to be correct output from these, guided by the natural language problem description. We implemented this idea in a tool LLMCodeChoice and evaluated its accuracy in generating and selecting standalone programs. Our experiments demonstrated its effectiveness in improving pass@1 by 3.6-7% on HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks compared to the state-of-art CodeT. Most interestingly, the selected input-output specifications helped us to uncover incompleteness and ambiguities in task descriptions and also identify incorrect ground-truth implementations in the benchmarks.