The young lawyer argues with the banker that life imprisonment is a better option than capital punishment, since any life is better than none at all. This is what motivates him to take the banker's bet. The story invites us to consider whether the lawyer is right when he claims that any life is better than none at all. No doubt, the lawyer survives his time in solitude, but when he emerges he no longer desires to interact with society. Can a life without the urge to interact with others truly be a valuable life? Can we even imagine what such a life would truly consist in?