Behavioral conduct is regulated through two different ways: law and morality. Morality is defined as the “rules of behavior that an individual or group may follow based on personal conscience and which are not necessarily part of legislative law” (Encyclopedia of American Law). Morality channels our behavior through a system of incentives; bad deeds produce “…guilt and disapproval, and good deeds give rise to virtuous feelings and praise” (Shavell 228). Law, on the other hand, is concerned with justice and is supported through “…the threat of sanctions if we disobey legal norms” (Shavell 227). The point of contention occurs when individuals mistakenly assume that a right decision requires morality. These individuals contest the scope of authority that morality or law should encompass. Morality and law do not operate in different spheres; instead, laws are created with the primary goal of persuading individuals to make moral decisions. In both Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons and Sophocles' Greek play Antigone, difficulties arise not because law and morality are actually in conflict, but because the individuals interpreting law and morality have different interpretations. The authors present the dichotomy between law and morality through a system of contrasts. Sir Thomas More and Antigone both place their faith in a higher power, while King Henry VIII and Creon trust in their own man-made laws. Because their opinions conflict with those of power, Antigone and Sir Thomas More are both sentenced to death. Although their punishments may seem unjust, in both literary pieces the characters resist the law. Creon and King Henry VIII thus act in accordance with their laws and, despite their... middle of paper...since it is above all their failure as rulers that is highlighted. The inconsistency between law and morality is furthered by individual interpretation of the law and its purpose. The conflict in both A Man for All Seasons and Antigone is not a conflict between morality and law, but in the characters' use of morality and law. For this reason, the decisions taken by both Creon and King Henry VIII to condemn Antigone and Thomas More are justified. Each protagonist made decisions that were conflicting, but were still moral. In writing the plays, the authors implied that one version of morality, that of Antigone and Sir Thomas More, was more acceptable than the other. However, this is not the case since King Henry and Creon's decisions were also expressed in moral terms and were made with regard to the good of the individuals under their command..