The Bet

The Bet is a short story about a lawyer and a banker who made a bet to prove their points of view. They're debating whether the death penalty is better or worse than life in prison. In doing so the bet is made. The link to the story is here.

The banker has his thoughts about the death penalty and imprisonment for life. He believes that the death penalty is more humane and moral, therefore he chose this aspect. Both the death penalty and imprisonment for life kill a person, death penalty in an instant, imprisonment for life over a period of years, slowly.  He asks "Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?" 

The lawyer 's point of view is much different. He believes that both are equally immoral but if he had to choose between the two, he would choose impsionment for life. He says "To live anyhow is better than not living at all."

And this is where the discussion arose. The banker disagreed with the lawyer's thought. The banker then bet the lawyer to stay in solitary confinment for five years and if completed he would pay him two million dollars. The lawyer excepted his wager but said he would do it for fifteen years instead. 

The lawyer completed his fifteen years but escaped early, not wanting the money. After being in solitary confinment for so long he learned things he never thought of before. He learned that everything human beings valued was worthless. He was empty, he had nothing. Everything was meaningless to him.  He didn't want the money for he knew it would bring him no joy.

While the banker had a very different experience. During the fifteen years he slowly went bankrupt. He had no way of paying the lawyer and so, the only thought that came to mind was to kill the lawyer. But, he did not do it because he read the letter the lawyer wrote about not wanting the money.

**********

Is it worth going to such measures to prove a point that may not even be taken when the bet is finished? In an effort to prove a point to the banker the lawyer lost fifteen years of his life. In an effort to change the lawyers thinking the banker became what he was against. He was against putting someone in jail for life but yet took away fifteen years of a mans life. He was then going to kill someone because of greed and fear. 

And, not going through either the death penalty or imprisonment for life they felt they had the position to argue a topic neither one had gone through themselves. Through this we destroy relationships. We are more prone to argue a point that is meaningless and never experienced rather than to find common ground or accept the others opinion as they're thinking. Through this ignorance is built. 

What is the point of arguing when so much more can be completed? Something so much better and worth while. We argue to the point that we go so far as to give up fifteen years of our life, maybe? Is this really important?

So, I leave you at this one question. When we argue, about meaningless or meaningful things, will it change anything? Will everyone switch to one side? Will this help grow us or seperate us? Will we join together or fall apart, against each other?