Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

Moral Responsibility. Perhaps the most basic attack on the Pro case by Con has been the charge that moral responsibility has not been shown to exist. Even if altruism would be shown to be a direct outcome of the application of either Kantian, utilitarian, or evolutionary ethics to society, if moral responsibility is not proved then it is all for nothing. For that reason refuting Con's observation is necessary in order to defend the Pro case. Luckily Con's observation doesn't hold weight under scrutiny. First, the opposite of moral responsibility (the position of an ethics which imposes no responsibility or obligation) is itself incoherent as was shown in the refutation of egoism (see 'Refutation of Egoism' below). Basically, under egoism, morality is simply whatever we do with no regard to concepts like right, wrong, good, or bad. This in itself establishes the scale in favor of the existence of moral responsibility. Of course that's not enough to prove positively that moral obligation exists. That part was provided in the point regarding Kantian universality. The basic point argued was that no moral code can be established as actually moral if it is merely contingent on one's desired ends. It would only create what Kant called a hypothetical imperative. But that's not morality. It's simply a way of choosing what to do to get to where you want. Morality deals with the right things to want. Figuring out how to get to what one wants is another job entirely. A construction worker isn't being moral when building a house just because they're utilizing means to achieve desired ends. He's simply doing his job as cost efficiently and as qualitatively as possible. It might be the smart thing to do but you wouldn't say that worker is being moral which is what an egoistic morality would dictate. Refutation of Egoism. Con has weakly attempted to dodge the necessary outcome of an egoistic morality. He argues that one would be free to be altruistic if one wants and that not everyone would act violently or aggressively. This may be all well and true, but it is altruism and not egoism that stamps out violent, aggressive action fully. Beating someone over the head to steal their clothes could be fully justified if the only rule of morality is that one acts according to their desires. However, a morality based off of concern for the welfare of others (as well as one's self) would deny that as wholly irrational. Con's point that not EVERYONE would be violent and aggressive fails to refute the fact that some people would, and would be fully justified under egoism. Conclusion. To conclude, moral responsibility has in fact been shown to exist both because the converse (non-obligatory morality) fails and because non-obligatory morality ignores what morality actually is. Non-obligatory morality simply creates a hypothetical imperative, which doesn't take into account any actual moral standards. Furthermore, since non-coercive actions taken are always taken on free will, egoism doesn't actually prescribe anything since acing on our own free will is acting according to our own desires. Ethical egoism is simply saying that whatever we do on our own free will is permissible because it is what we want to do and that anything we are forced to do by the will of someone else is also fine (since universality is not required under egoism, thus not everyone is under the same rules and requirements) since that is something someone else wants, since they are also morally justified in doing whatever they want. So basically, any action at all by anyone is justified, hence the earlier charge that egoism is simply amoralism stands. Moral responsibility has been shown to exist (hence the application of Kantian and utilitarian standards succeeds) and ethical egoism has been shown to be inherently self defeating and amoral.