I think it is quite ignorant to mischaracterise consequentialism like that. Though maybe it’s due to my lack of understanding on what you mean when you say consequentialism applies morality to something that isn't morality. From what I can gather I suppose you're saying that without the 'ought' to, it is no longer morality, but consequentialism does give reasons as why you 'ought' to more so than deontology.
Firstly, you seem to have been mistaken with what consequentialism is, consequentialism is more concerned with the outcome of an event and what is considered a 'good' or a just outcome. Your example of collective utility is yes a form of consequentialism but it is utilitarian so you have already the assumption that we should believe utility is the most important factor in the end outcome of an event. Why 'ought' we believe that the utilitarian view of morality is superior? I certainly myself believe that it is somewhat flawed and I cannot justify that particular view but it stands to reason that there is still a logical (or pseudo logical reasoning) that justifies the utilitarian stance on morality since consequentialism does not have to lead to utilitarianism.
Consequentialism is about ends, not the means. Even objectivism which stresses the importance of the individiual over the collective whole is consequentialist. It believes that you must do what you believe is best for yourself regardless of its consequences on others. It sees the individual of prime importance so whatever can allow your desires to be fufilled must be adhered to. And to ayn rand selfish egoism is what will lead to a person reaching their fullest potential. So she in herself is looking at the ends and believes that sort of morality will lead to the best outcome for herself. (Though it’s hard for her to justify her own importance over others it’s merely taken as a given, but like everything it starts from self evident proofs).
Now deontology on the other hand, which you seem to be advocating, has no real 'ought' at all. Kants beliefs for the wrongness of an action was due to its intrinsically bad nature irrespective of its consequences. (Yes he did have a justification why we 'ought' to be deontologists but his proof is ill considered since it still has a hint of consequentialism in it I will expand further if you want but I’ll suspend that for the moment). Taken to the logical extreme which Kant explicitly advocated, makes it very stupid. For example, it would mean that if somebody came to your house and asked you where your mum is because he was going to kill her, you would be obliged to tell the truth thus leading to her death. (Yes you can also ring the police and not answer him, but it maybe too late).
Now, this does not in any way justify any sort of meta-ethical belief in morality. I'm not saying morality exists but rather morality is a practical effort constructed by human beings to make a more cohesive and better society. Now the question may arise, why should an individual care for another person at all if it is not in his/her interests? Well for one, the only reason you would not help a young kid say getting bashed on the streets and you had the ability to help him in which would not harm yourself, would be because you have a logical justification for your ideas i.e. "objectivism". In the same way you may say it seems stupid that somebody for example would be stupid to increase the collective utility of society (one justification would be because it is mathematically logical since a greater quantity of benefit is better than smaller through the hedonistic calculus) and you would say this does not benefit me, so why would I do it? It would be moral cannibalism for me to do something to help others. But for all the objectivists talk about human nature being intrinsically selfish, there is also the fact that emotionally you may feel distraught that you did not help that young boy, and thus to fufill even your own emotional needs it would be better to help that boy (Ayn Rand does give an example something like this regarding the gift of the bracelet in her novel). So possibly that because the collective utility would make the person who sacrificed himself happier is a reason to do it.
Lastly to claim the individual is the only unit that is important and that others are irrelevant, the very fact that everyone is dependent on society makes that statement fallacious. Thatchers statement "there is no society, there are people and families, but not society" Is I believe logically unjustified while Einstein on the other hand makes a more logical case for societies existence.
"The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
And this is why; we 'ought' to be concerned collective values.
