Ah, the eternal conflict, resolution vs refresh rate. Resolution is a funny thing. You think you're gonna see mega sharp textures, then struggle to see the difference. In short, high refresh rate is my personal favorite.
I had a 24" 1080p 144Hz monitor, now own a 27" 1440p 165Hz monitor, and own a 65" 4k OLED 60Hz display. In my opinion, the only purpose of high resolution is to make textures appear good on extremely large monitors. Basically, what makes textures appear sharp on your monitor is whether you can distinguish between two adjacent light sources. This is known as the Rayleigh criterion, and it is a function of the pixel density (something in the lines of: resolution/monitor size), as well as the distance you sit from the monitor. This means that if you sit very close, you need the quantity of resolution/monitor size to be a large number. However, once it reaches that number, increasing this ratio will yield no additional gains. And if you don't sit extremely close to the monitor, then you don't need the ratio of resolution/monitor to be very big.
So, if you have a 24" display, and let's say you sit a meter away from the monitor, it won't be easy to notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p, and it will be even more difficult to distinguish between 1440p and 4k. But if you have a 65" display, and you sit 10cm from it, then you will see the difference between all 3 resolutions.
Now, what about refresh rate. Refresh rate is going to affect the smoothness of things. It's not gonna affect scenery, it's gonna affect high paced motion. Refresh rate is not a function of how far you sit from the monitor, or how big it is, and it's effect is limited only by the refresh rate of your eye (which I have no idea how to calculate).
So, in short, if you want nice scenery views on a large monitor, you need 4k. But if you're a casual gamer that plays high-paced games on a monitor that is 27"-32", then 2k 144Hz would be the way to go.