What prevented good guards from objecting or countermanding the orders from tough or bad guards?

This week we learned about the groundbreaking research of Drs. Milgram & Zimbardo. Now write about what you learned using at least four double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font, pages.

Was it ethical to do this study? Was it right to trade the suffering experienced by participants for the knowledge gained by the research? Why or why not?
How do the ethical dilemmas in this research compare with the ethical issues raised by Stanley Milgrams obedience experiments? Would it be better if these studies had never been done? Why or why not?
If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study? Why or why not?
If you were a guard, what type of guard would you have become? How sure are you?
What prevented “good guards” from objecting or countermanding the orders from tough or bad guards?
If you were a prisoner, would you have been able to endure the experience? What would you have done differently than those subjects did?
After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt when they saw each other in the same civilian clothes again and saw their prison reconverted to a basement laboratory hallway?
Give an example of a current event (within the past 15-20 years) that echoes Zimbardos study. What similarities do you see?
What can studies like Milgrams and Zimbardos tell us about human nature?