How Does Abraham Kill His Son

1. In the Bible, God commanded Abraham to kills his son Isaac as a sacrifice. If Abraham does not kill or sacrifice his son Abraham, then he is disobeying God and not demonstrating his faith and loyalty to God. If Abraham kills his son then he would have his treasured son, so both options that Abraham was experiencing were both unpleasant, and neither alternative was a decent choice in Abrahams' eyes.
2. Individually people do not value, try to, or believe it is okay to harm another individual because they are taking personal responsibility for their actions. However, when there is an authoritative figure who absorbs the principal amount of harmful responsibility the individual can validate this particular damaging action as okay because they are obeying an order.
3. I do not think the experimenter so much threatened however placed suggestion or used coercion for the harmful acts to be allowed because the experimenter was taking responsibility for the negative action. For example, when the Experimenter states to Prozi “I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue, please” and “The responsibility is mine. Correct. Please go on.” He coerced people into believing that even though they were committing the act, it was the experimenter who

was taking full responsibility, therefore, they should not feel individually guilty for their actions.
4.

The experimenter lost power when there was an increased amount of distance between the experimenter and the subject. For example, when the experimenter’s orders were given by phone then there was a sharp drop-off in obedience versus when the experimenter had a physical presence near the subject. When two authority figures are in conflict produces a change in people, and they are not able to decide which authority figure orders to follow, so they follow neither. The rebellious acts of others seem to influence a change in people to disobey the experimenter. When a few individuals decided to disobey the experimenter orders, then a few more followed and disobeyed the orders and refused to go beyond a certain shock

level.
5. The theoretical interpretation of this behavior is that all people harbor genuinely aggressive instincts continually pressing for expression and that the experiment provides institutional justification for the release of these impulses. This research opened the door to allow people's aggressive, sadistic, and bestial tendencies to be explored. I believe that some people could feel a sense of command and control when placed in a situation like this and therefore be able to act out or release their hostilities because they are not ‘technically’ responsible according to the experimenter.
6. The responsibility of these orders that go against a person’s values and conscience are not their responsibility to endure, and the authoritative figure takes all the responsibility in their mind for these harmful actions. Another thought on the topic is that the person following the orders feels a sense of duty and accountability to the authority as an individual’s morality is altered so that the focus is to please the authority. The result of not obeying the authority’s orders can be either pride or shame depending on the outcome.