Setting aside that part of the article's point is that it's unclear what (if anything) the experiment shows at all, that's not really a rebuttal. You're agreeing that systems create behavior, and adding on that therefore those in the system need to be restrained with the threat of accountability.

But you see how even if you believe the experiment argues that systems need to be held accountable, that still lets individuals off the hook? "It's not my fault, I was only following orders. Someone should have been holding me accountable." In fact, the article has a direct account of Zimbardo's experiment being used to defend a criminal. It turns out later that the defense was largely a lie.

>You're agreeing that systems create behavior

i don't think systems create behavior. They do though unleash and amplify. They also can force. I don't think any doctor, with their deeply ingrained "do no harm", would administer a shock in the Milgram for example.

> "It's not my fault, I was only following orders.

I think following an order backed by a credible punishing force is separate subject.

>Someone should have been holding me accountable."

That comes as an attempt at defense when you're already being held accountable, and which is basically equivalent to an admission that you've made a error calculating your chances of being held accountable, and it is puzzling to see why/how some reasonable people would still fall for it and accept such admission as a defense whether in legal or in moral/ethical space.

Doctors administer lethal injections in many states that institute the death penalty. Nobody forces them to accept such a role.

Someone I know used to specialize in physically rehabilitating torture victims...for the sake of getting them put back together just enough so they could withstand further torture.

Systems create behavior. Its a large part of how cycles of abuse persist.

You're not disagreeing with either the commenter you're replying to or the article itself.