What I am describing is exactly what I said. If a theory of morality is not concerned with well-being (be it through pure utilitarian principles, through social contracts, through deontological rules, etc.), then calling it a theory of morality is a travesty.
You will forgive me for quoting Wikipedia, but this is indeed the widely accepted definition of the term:
"Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering."
Let's see what it says about morality:
"Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)."
You will notice that this definition, which is also uncontroversial and not in debate, does not say anything about happiness, harm, or suffering, which is just one set of criteria according to which actions may be judged.
Therefore, sir, you are blatantly wrong and are merely presenting an assertion as fact. May I also add that utilitarianism, which you are clearly espousing here, is a severely discredited notion and has hardly been put forward as the definitive source of morality since the middle of the 19th century. Congratulations, your argument is only 150 years out of date.