The first thing to state is that Socrates' life should be described only and not written, and that the views of "justice" mentioned in the article are all recorded in his student Plato's Republic. The first volume of the book, on the theme "What is Justice", was rebutted by Plato, through the teacher Socrates, several popular views of justice held by the Athenians at the time.
Statue of Socrates
First of all, the first person to express his views in the book is Kefalos, who believes that justice is "repaid by debt", and Socrates asks: Has it always been just to have a debt to repay? Could there be a situation where it is sometimes just and sometimes unjust? For example, your friend lent you a knife, and then his spirit went wrong, to return the knife, his friends are advised not to pay it back, at this time" or justice?
Acropolis of Ancient Greece
The second man, Bolemarjos, is "a friend who harms the enemy", and Socrates repeatedly questions this view, whether the so-called friends are those who look good or are actually really good people; are the so-called enemies those who look bad, or do they refer to people who are really bad? Don't the average person treat good guys as bad guys and treat bad guys as good guys? If that's the case, then isn't it better to treat the good guys as enemies and the bad guys as friends? This is the limitation of "benefiting friends and harming enemies".
There is also a person who believes that justice is the "interest of the strong", the so-called strong, that is, the ruler, they formulate the corresponding laws and regulations according to their own interest orientation to tell people that "what you do to my advantage is just, and the corresponding violation of the law is a crime", and the ruled slaves obey the will of the ruler is "justice", on the contrary, if they resist, it is injustice. First of all, the ruler may not really be able to fully understand his own interests, and the ruler will also be confused to formulate some laws that are unfavorable to himself, which is implemented by the ruled according to this, then the damage to the interests of the ruled will correspondingly become "justice". And, not only that, even if the ruler defines his own interests as "justice", in essence, the ruler and the ruled are one and the same, and the interests of the ruler need to be protected by the ruler, and if the ruled has no food, the ruler will have no taxation and the interests will be damaged.
In today's society, I believe that "justice" should be a "common denominator", which is a huge system built based on the most basic underlying structure of "do not do to others what you do not want", and is the concentrated embodiment of the will of the interests of all people in society. So, what is "justice" in your mind?
Well, I'm nagging, an up-lord who tries to talk philosophically in plain language, expecting your attention.