Only motion blur is correct: adding frames (assumed to be correctly timed, without tearing, etc.) is better than nothing, but you still see a sequence of crisp shapes instead of motion-blurred ones, and persistence of vision only goes so far.
But what do you have against motion blur, apart from its terrible computational burden? How can you say it looks bad?

I really don't like the way motion blur looks

There are a number of different approaches to motion blur and a number of variables that can be tweaked which will change the overall 'look'; for smoother camera motion you can use a simple camera-only motion blur post process and adjust the blur kernel size to balance smooth motion against a blurry image (tutorial here). I find that at around 60Hz the effect isn't noticeable beyond making the camera motion look more fluid.

But what do you have against motion blur, apart from its terrible computational burden

Depending on the implementation it's really not very computationally expensive.