The retort's argument is understandable, but misses the point of the original essay. Nikhil's suggestion that a person's niceness should take into account how their decisions may affect people beyond their immediate sphere is valid. The retort's point that it is important to consider how decisions may affect those outside of one's immediate sphere and strive to benefit the greatest number of people is absolutely true, and Nikhil does not disagree with that. However, the retort implies that being nice to those close to you is wrong or unnecessary. This overlooks the idea in Nikhil's essay that it is only when a person makes a decision that is beneficial to those close to them at the expense of something more beneficial to others - essentially, dehumanizing those outside of one's immediate sphere - that they are a bad person.
In other words, if someone does something nice for those around them but does not go out of their way to do anything significantly more beneficial for large-scale humanity, they would still be considered a good person according to Nikhil's definition. UrRong in implying that making sure those close to us are taken care of is wrong or unnecessary; it is an integral part of being a nice person and should not be overlooked. That said, it should not come at the expense of considering how our actions may affect distant strangers just as much, if not more. Whether we like it or not, in the world we live in today, we often must choose between two or more difficult options; good people are not exempt from such realities. So, let's all remember to strive to be as dickless as possible!