The question which preceded the making of the bet at the banker’s party some fifteen years prior to the story’s present asked which is more immoral: life imprisonment or the death penalty. The banker argued that life imprisonment is far less humane than capital punishment because it results in a prolonged, drawn-out death, whereas the death penalty is quick. His stance differed from the majority of the guests at his party.

One or two people, including the lawyer, argued that both punishments are equally immoral, but the lawyer claimed that he would much rather deal with a sentence of life imprisonment himself because “to live anyhow is better than not at all.” In other words, any life is better than no life, to his mind. It is ironic that, following a discussion of which punishment is more moral and humane, both men seem to lose their humanity.

The banker loses his humanity when he determines to murder the lawyer, a man who has already been through a lot, seemingly for no good reason. He does not want to have to pay the large sum they’d bet, as it will ruin him financially, and he ranks his financial situation well above his morality or humanity. He would rather murder another human being than go broke, and he finds himself to be contemptuous as a result.

The lawyer loses his humanity as a result of his studies of humanity. He says that we have lost our reason and traded heaven for earth. He writes, “I don't want to understand you,” and he says how much he despises humans and everything they value. He sacrificed fifteen years of his life for a small fortune, and he has realized, since then, how much humanity privileges material wealth over spiritual wealth. He distances himself from humanity, having become an outside observer rather than a participant in life. The central irony of the story is that both men lose their humanity over a bet about what is humane.