I know that we can divide utilitarians into two groups, those that focus on what was expected to happen and those that focus on what actually happened, and that most fall into the latter group. However, I don't seem to understand why.
For example, let's say there's a person with a serious, but not deadly, illness, and a doctor has a treatment for the illnes, but with only a 5 % chance of survival. Now, let's also assume they go through with the treatment and the patient survies. Then, a utilitarian who focuses on what actually happened will say that the doctor acted morally right, while a person who focuses on what was expected to happen would say he acted wrong. In this example I find it morally problematic to focus on what actually happened, but I can't make up an opposite example where it would be morally problematic to focus on what was expected. Therefore I don't seem to understand what is attractive about only focusing on what actually happened.