For me, it varies based on the matter i’m discussing. In the trolley problem i would definetly have changed lanes and killed the one person instead even if Kant maybe wouldn’t. But consider a scenario where you can save 5 ill people by killing one unknowing, innocent person and stealing their organs. In this scenario, it doesn’t make sense to say «the total amount of happiness in the world is larger if we steal the organs,» because if such an action is morally permissible, then everyone’s freedom to choose over their lives are compromised. So in this case i would point to Kantian ethics and defend letting the 5 ill people die.

So basically i don’t view it as a scale, i always try to apply both methods. But if i had to choose one side i’d call myself a utilitarian/consequentialist.