Very interesting debate, thank you for the highly elaborated responses. I could write a book about this fascinating topics but here I'll try to keep it short and telegraphic:

• I assume the goal is the happiness and prosperity of the many and the most
• When people cooperate and collaborate, they achieve so much more than when acting alone
• Successful cooperation and collaboration is at its most efficient when people can specialise and focus on what they do best and what they do with the least effort and that from which they derive the highest personal gratification
• For the benefit of the most (of "the community" or "the society" if you wish) when 2 or more people would like to do a thing for which only one is needed, there needs to be a system in place to decide who "the best" of the two (or of the many) for that position is.
• This system will necessarily frustrate those who, according to this system, turn out to be "not the best for the community". Tensions will arise and some of those frustrated might display a tendency to dispute the results of the selection

So here we are: for the benefit of the community, we need to minimize the time and energy spent in disputing the criteria and the system for choosing the best persons to occupy a position in the various organizations which benefit the community.

Now I invite you to temporarily set aside whatever definition you assume for the term "moral".

Set it aside and consider the following:
"the moral of individual responsibility", in this context, means "pledging to honor a system for selecting people for roles in society, and keeping one's pledge even when the outcome of the selection adversely impacts one"

This is what the "moral of individual responsibility" is.

It is "good" to keep your word and abide by your (freely chosen) prior commitments. It is "bad" to say today something and then say the opposite the next day if you see that it doesn't suit you ...

If that would be moral, would you still say that you are "amoral" ?