Majoritarianism, utalitarianism, and consensual, are all 3 unique philosiphies.
Majoritarianism - elect candidates that are preferred by a majority.
Utilitarianism - elect candidates that maximize *average voter satisfaction (also called voter utility, hence the name utilitarianism).
*or geometric mean if you want to maximize the utilitarian version of proportionality. One voting method that approximately does this is harmonic voting: https://rangevoting.org/QualityMulti.html
Consensual - elect candidates that maximize consensus (candidates that are at least broadly liked by everybody).
Here is where a utilitarian outcome differs from a consensual outcome:
60% of voters rate candidate A five stars and candidate B three stars.
40% of voters rate candidate A one star and candidate B three stars.
If you wanted to maximize average utility, you would elect candidate A, however, candidate B is not as polarizing as candidate A so if you wanted to maximize consensus you might instead elect candidate B.
The way I see it, majoritarianism and consensual are two opposite extremes.
Majoritarianism’s biggest flaw is that it elects polarizing candidates too often.
Consensual’s biggest flaw is that it elects milk-toast candidates too often.
Utilitarianism is the perfect middle ground between those two opposing philosophies.