Is Life Worth Living Without Immortality? A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society, Chicago — Context and Discussion

Health as the Foundation of Character

Mangasarian devotes his opening paragraphs to the physical basis of philosophy. 'We cannot appreciate health too highly,' he writes, and argues that bodily condition profoundly shapes one's outlook. He proposes replacing the Decalogue's first commandment with a rule about health, claiming that preserving health entails observing all other commandments—temperance, purity, sanity, self-possession, contentment. This is not a metaphor: he insists that 'if the foundation is insecure—if we have inherited disease and corruption, we can be sound, neither in our thoughts nor in our actions.' The argument is striking for its materialist reduction of ethics to physiology, and it sets a pattern for the lecture: each domain of human experience is examined independently of supernatural belief.

He even predicts a future where 'to be sickly will be considered a crime,' suggesting a revolution in moral feeling already underway. This opening move is crucial for a first reading: it establishes that Mangasarian will not argue abstractly about the soul, but will anchor his case in observable, embodied human experience.

Supernaturalism as a Destructive Force

Having grounded ethics in health, Mangasarian turns to attack supernaturalism directly. He charges that it 'denies goodness, and it destroys in man the power of self-help.' To support this, he cites Von Humboldt's indignation at theologians who make human well-being depend on 'supernatural gossip.' The language is deliberately harsh, and the lecture does not soften its critique.

He then poses a historical challenge: if belief in God and immortality produces morality, why were the Dark Ages—'ages of faith'—so morally dark? Why are Moslems, with their stronger faith, not more moral than Europeans? Why was King Leopold, a Christian, 'a moral leper,' while Socrates, a pagan uncertain about the afterlife, 'perfumed the centuries with his virtues'? These examples are not offered as proofs but as rhetorical questions that undermine the assumed link between belief and behavior. The reader should note that Mangasarian does not provide systematic historical evidence; his method is to juxtapose striking counterexamples to provoke reconsideration.

Morality Independent of Immortality

Mangasarian argues that excellence of character is independent of speculation about the eternal past or future. He points out that people care for their health, pursue knowledge, and love their country without requiring those things to be immortal. 'You love your country and you are willing to defend its institutions, if need be, with your life, but is it because your country is immortal?' He asks whether Washington and his soldiers were fools for not first securing their country's eternal existence. Similarly, art lovers pay fortunes for paintings that will eventually perish; readers treasure books that a fire could destroy. These everyday attachments, he claims, demonstrate that human beings value things for their own sake, not for their permanence.

The argument is cumulative: health, mind, affections, and conscience all thrive without supernatural props. Mangasarian concludes that 'morality [is] able to take care of itself without the help of ghosts and gods.' This section is the lecture's core, and a first-time reader should attend to how he builds his case from concrete, relatable examples rather than abstract theology.

The Rhetoric of a Freethinker's Lecture

Mangasarian's style is direct, conversational, and occasionally sardonic. He addresses his audience as 'you' and uses rhetorical questions to draw them into agreement. His sentences are often short and declarative: 'Health is the foundation of character.' He employs vivid contrasts—the 'infamous' theologian versus the 'perfumed' Socrates—and does not shy from provocative phrasing, such as calling supernatural belief 'negative and destructive.'

The lecture's structure is circular: it begins with health, moves through a critique of supernaturalism, returns to the sufficiency of natural motives, and ends by reaffirming that life is worth living without immortality. A first-time reader should note that Mangasarian does not engage with opposing arguments in detail; he asserts his position and illustrates it with examples. The lecture is a performance of freethinking confidence, designed to embolden those who already doubt and to challenge those who do not. The excerpts break off before the conclusion, so the final rhetorical flourish is unknown, but the pattern suggests a return to the opening theme of health and pleasure in life.

Mangasarian's lecture is best read as a specimen of early twentieth-century rationalist oratory, not as a philosophical treatise. Its power lies in its directness and its refusal to concede ground to supernatural explanations. A first-time reader should pay attention to the rhetorical strategies—the use of historical counterexamples, the appeal to everyday experience, the redefinition of commandments—rather than expecting a rigorous argument. The excerpts are incomplete, but they reveal a speaker who is confident, combative, and convinced that morality needs no other foundation than human nature itself.

I found myself lingering on Mangasarian’s insistence that art and health carry their own meaning, without needing forever. It made me think of that other pamphlet, The Super Race: An American Problem — Background and Themes, where the same restless hope for human improvement feels so fragile, so tied to the present moment. Perhaps we just keep asking the same quiet question, differently.