There is an important point here: even if you can show that you can give an agent an utility function that represents following a particular moral theory, that utility function might not be the same from person to person. For example, if you believe lying violates the categorical imperative, you might not lie even to prevent ten people from lying in the future. What you are trying to minimize in this situation is incidences of you lying, rather then of lying, full stop.
But any other moral agent would (by hypothesis) also by trying to minimize their lying, and so you lose the right to say things like, "You ought to maximize the good consequences (according to some notion of good consequences)," which some would say are defining of consequentialism.
At any rate, you end up with a kind of "consequentialism" that's in a completely different boat to, say, utilitarianism, and TBH isn't that interesting.
Certainly, other moral theories are not equivalent to utilitarianism, but why does that make them uninteresting to you?
This was demonstrated, in a certain limited way, in Peterson (2009). See also Lowry & Peterson (2011).
The Peterson result provides an "asymmetry argument" in favor of consequentialism:
Another argument in favor of consequentialism has to do with the causes of different types of moral judgments: see Are Deontological Moral Judgments Rationalizations?
Update: see Carl's criticism.