Before the reader sets out to analyze this play, the reader must confront the author's own interpretation of it. Since the subject matter of the play is a pinnacle moment in what is perhaps the most well-known story in the history of the earth, the author of this play sets out at the finale to explain what the audience has just witnessed. This is called moralization. The doctor moralizes the play to suggest that the story is evidence of something inherently true about human nature, and in that analysis, the reader sees a kind of acceptance of fate that verges on fatalism.
But that is not the only interpretation of the play. For instance, since the first interpretation falls within the body of the text (that is to say, it is still part of the artwork of the play), the reader can interpret the whole of the play as a demonstration of what religion looks like in the Western world. That's certainly a correct idea given the location of the play in history, in the Middle Ages in England, because those times were defined by working through the philosophical assumptions of human nature. This is not just a play; it is an argument about how meaning operates. One man's story becomes sacred myth for all of human history.
As far as the moralization of the play is concerned, the reader is certainly entitled to their opinion of the story—in fact, it is their right to believe what they want to believe about God and life and human fate—but one thing is obvious from the mythology here: Abraham is given a horrible command by a supreme being to simultaneously accept the death of his child, and to confront some sort of inherent bloodguiltiness about that death (Abraham has to participate in the death of his son). That religious experience of death-awareness and acceptance is certainly the bedrock for important religious philosophies. If nothing else, the play establishes a portrait of the absurdity of human life and death.
