Through the experiment Zimbardo was able to depict that when the participants were separated from the social constructs and their routine lives and put in a drafted evil place like a prison, the guards managed to undergo altered morality which was shown in the way they behaved with the prisoners and abused them based on the power they held in the experiment. The worst possible outcomes were realized in the experiment which clearly highlighted that it is very much possible for humans to become evil if the environment isolates them and provides them with the relevant authority and power.
There exist arguments against the Stanford Prison Experiment and its validity to the argument at hand as critics argue that other elements also affected the results of the experiments. It is claimed that the participants of the experiment were handpicked by Zimbardo after being briefed on enacting a sample prison life in the experiment. This according to critics was revealing too much information and making the mock prisoners and the mock guards in the experiment behave in the manner they stereotypically believed and expected the character to behave. Another argument that is often held against the conclusive validity of the Stanford Prison Experiment is the role that was played by Zimbardo as one of the main instigators who participated in the experiment and also did not supervise or control the experiment as a mediator. However what the critics fail to observe is that the experiment depicted how humans when deprived form social norms and constructs feel free form social and ethical obligations can behave in immoral ways as they do not expect any punishment or accountability of their action. This simply goes to further strengthen our argument that isolation can garner altered behavior in humans that can be considered immoral in nature.