I imagine the Milgram subjects rationalized their button-pushing. But regardless I've always been pretty much stumped by the results he got. I admit to not having a good counterargument except, run the study fifty more times and see what happens. Has that study ever been replicated, or is it too famous to do so without bias? Those are "good" rationalizations [at least somewhat rational things to think, unlike "Arabs aren't people"], but are just that nonetheless. Maybe they make the CIA officers somehow "better" than the Milgramites, because the officers' reasons were better, but it doesn't make either of them right. It's hard to argue against the old "you aren't any better than they are" rebuttal. Human nature is murky and I don't have the time to devote to a real reply tonight (your email lies fallow as well -- I'll need a day or two more). Closing thought: a lot of people read summaries of this study today, or became aware it exists. Presumably, at least a few of them are in the CIA or thinking about joining the CIA. Most of them aren't going to quit, or stop pursuing their goal, or else the agency won't have any people in it in 2017. On the other hand, I and plenty of others wouldn't touch a career in the CIA with a ten-foot pole no matter what, not after this (and other things). What does that say about Milgram, and Guantanamo, and human nature? There have to be some people who wouldn't turn the voltage up (there were). They are allowed to be judgmental, I think.The subjects experienced considerable anguish, not unlike the CIA workers who were "profoundly affected" in August 2002. They had orders. Refusing to comply would likely affect their careers. They may have had reason to believe that they were saving lives by torturing a person. Torturing, yet not killing, a person who may have intended to harm and kill others. They were in hidden locations far from home, working for an organization known for keeping secrets, which discouraged them from talking about even their routine work with friends or family.