Exploitation

If your point is just charity is good then fine I agree. Maybe people are even obligated to give some amount. But above that I think exploitation is justified cause it is helping, just a limited amount. I don't think everyone is obligated to sell every organ they can and work long hours to maximally help.

My issue is more with society which maximizes exploitation. I don't have issues with society where there is exploitation, but also a lot of charity to improve lives of all, even the exploited ones who are at the bottom of society.

And I agree that person doesn't have obligation to donate organs or work maximally long hours, because that would make good person's life way worse. But I do think one should donate to charity a lot, and the rule about this is usually first secure yourself financially, then donate extra to charity.

But would you have similar problems with a society that gave the same amount to charity and just exploited less? Assuming the exploitation was consensual and improved people's circumstances on top of the charity?

I mean, it largely depends on what we consider to be exploitation. If we are talking of less exploitation in form of child labor and extreme working conditions, then I wouldn't have issue with society having less of those.

This is because banning certain forms of exploitation doesn't actually leave people without options. When child labor was banned, it didn't leave those children without options. This is because society adapts.

You can quite perfectly reduce work hours legally to 7 per day, 5 days a week, and employment won't drop.

This isn't "exploitation or no exploitation". This is just banning forms of exploitation which are severely harmful to society long term.

Again, I'm fine with banning child labor and even using the government to coerce companies for the greater good. There are cases where exploitation is bad. If we're both in favor of mixed economies, then I'm not sure we have a material disagreement, I'm just saying exploitation is not inherently bad.

Again, what is good or bad depends on comparison. Saying exploitation is better than nothing is not saying exploitation is good, when better systems can be made which reduce exploitation and improve life quality more. Mixed systems are so far the only functional systems, and debate is more about which is correct mix than choosing between exploitation or nothing.

It is the goal of Christianity to help the poor and needy.

Not really. They just pretend. Most of Christian donations to "charity" go to church building.

This is not a good way to evaluate things. I could say "punching someone in the face is good because it could be worse."

All things are valued by available options. You can't value things by options which don't exist. So the goal is just to choose best option by comparison.

Good doesn't mean the best possible option just like positive doesn't mean the biggest possible number. Otherwise why even have the word great? Or the word best?

Again, "good" depends on comparison. Let's say your only options were getting punched in face or losing an arm. In this scenario, getting punched in face is "good".

Likewise, small positive isn't necessarily good. If I get 1$ raise in income, that's positive, but it's not good.

Because to determine what's good and what's not, you need two things: comparison of options, and standard used to compare them.

Now, I prefer to define good as best, because really, anything short of best is just insufficient.

If you knew there was one best possible path, choosing a different path cannot be logically justified.

If it's based on the maximum you could give, then even donating a kidney isn't good because you also could have spent all day volunteering and given part of your liver too but you just gave your kidney.

It's based on maximum life quality of all, including myself. So it's not me giving all to someone else, but some balance where we both live quality lives worth living.

But the liver and volunteering still helps them more than it costs you, would still be a net gain.

Cost is a subjective thing. If I volunteered all the time, I would have no free time, and my life quality would reduce greatly. Same for liver, really. I can't stand organ donations. It's also a risk to my life.

I admit there is a lot of subjectivity to how much person should help others. But when it comes to money, I don't really see an excuse in having significantly more than someone else.

Mainly because money donations don't really take away much free time, and they aren't organ donations. It's just money. Maybe some people value their money too much, but still, I think person does have duty to help others somehow without diminishing own life quality greatly, and I don't really see how someone with bunch of money would live a worse life by donating some of it.

Implies Bezos should squeeze as much out of his employees as he can and then redistribute to those who need it more

Business owners already try to squeeze every bit of labor out of their employees they can. However, government should regulate it because if what you are saying is done on mass scale by each employer, end result is degrading quality of life for anyone who has a job.