There are consequences for every individual's action, but in Zimbardo's perspective there was only one that was similar to Kant's theory of the categorical imperative. Zimbardo's theory is more like Aristotle in that yes, they should face consequences, but we need to look at what that individual did before punishing them, looking at the environment they were in. In other words, Aristotle points out that people were not naturally good or bad. People simply exhibited different characters, depending on what their behavioral habits were (p.52). I can say this about Zimbardo's people who can have courage, firmness and not be good. For someone to be morally good they must have good will. Zimbardo conducted the Stanford experiment using a few college students to play the roles of prison guards and inmates and the inmates were forced to obey every command the prison guards tell them in a mock prison environment. As I read about the experiment, I was amazed that Zimbardo sat there and watched everything that happened in the experiment when prison guards refused inmates to use the bathroom and forced them to perform humiliating and degrading acts and he didn't nothing to stop