> I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a sham

> I'm not suggesting we should rely on the study to prove moral plasticity. I'm suggesting that evidence of moral plasticity is all around us, and it is a shame that the flaws of this one study (that has become associated with it in the public consciousness) seem to be used to refute moral plasticity. You're absolutely, completely, 100% right. It's an utter travesty that the flaws of this study are used to refute the notion of moral plasticity. With that said, is it perhaps possible that we see moral plasticity everywhere because we have been taught that it is a thing we can expect to see everywhere? We may be caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the basis of a single flawed study, we know exactly nothing except that Zimbardo was dishonest. Wiser heads than mine might be well-advised to throw out any notions on the subject whatsoever and begin anew.