Republic: What is justice?

I have been reading books on western philosophy recently, one of which is Plato's Republic. In the first volume, Socrates' exposition on "justice" impressed me deeply.

According to the traditional view of justice, justice means "telling the truth and paying off debts". You have to pay back what you took from others, and you have to pay back what you owe others. Justice between friends is to be kind to others, not to treat others badly. Helping a friend is just, but hurting a friend is unjust. In a word, justice is to give everyone a proper reward. This is the so-called "debt repayment".

There is also a more radical view of justice, which holds that justice is the interest of the strong, that is, justice is the interest of the government in power. The government makes laws to tell everyone that what is good for the government is just for the people; Whoever doesn't obey it is guilty of breaking the law and has the name of injustice. In any country, the so-called justice is the interest of the government at that time. No matter in the country, family, army or any group, injustice first makes it impossible for them to act in unison. Unjust people can't cooperate at all.

However, Socrates refuted all these views. In view of the view that "paying debts is justice", Socrates cited examples of medical skills, cooking, helmsman and just people in war, and concluded that if justice is only useful for useless things, then justice is nothing. Moreover, if justice is just "helping friends and hurting enemies", how can we judge enemies and friends? For this kind of judgment, it is easy to "treat the bad guys as good guys and treat the good guys as bad guys". Then, for example, just people should only do just things, but do unjust things that hurt others. This is a contradiction. Socrates finally reached an agreement with Bo that "justice is to help friends and hurt enemies" is the idea of Periandro, Peticca, Zeze, Yi Sima Neya of Thebes, or other rich self-righteous people.

In view of the view that "justice is the interest of the strong", Socrates first refuted the view that "obedience to rulers is justice", pointing out that rulers of various countries will inevitably make some mistakes, and some laws may be wrong when they legislate. Then, it introduces the fallacy that "it is just to obey not only the laws that are beneficial to the strong, but also the laws that are unfavorable to the strong". Then, Socrates shows that no science or skill only cares about the interests of the strong and ignores the interests of the weak dominated by it by citing a series of examples of people in occupations. It is further pointed out that in any government, it is impossible for a ruler to only care about his own interests and ignore the interests of his subordinates. Everything he said and did was for the benefit of the people. They hold public office for the benefit of the governed, not for their own benefit.

Everyone thinks that just people live better and happier than unjust people. Because, compared with unjust people, just people always suffer everywhere. The most unjust person is the happiest person. People who don't want to do evil are the most painful. Injustice is more beneficial than justice. As long as we do injustice with great fanfare, it will be more powerful, desirable and imposing than justice.

At the end of the discussion, Socrates still didn't give an accurate conclusion about "justice", nor did he say "whether the just is painful or happy", but his way of debate left a deep impression on me, constantly asking questions and questioning, and not easily affirming other people's views. In this process, we will find that the original belief is gradually untenable and even overthrown.

Then, the question comes: What do you think of "justice"?