This outrageous parental selfishness and tyranny, so detrimental to the interests of the human race, was gradually mitigated as civilization progressed in Europe.  Marriages were no longer made for the benefit of the parents alone, but with a view to the comfort and worldly advantages of the couple to be wedded.  But rank, money, dowry, continued—­and continue in Europe to this day—­to be the chief matchmakers, few parents rising to the consideration of the welfare of the grandchildren.  The grandest task of the morality of the future will be to make parental altruism extend to these grandchildren; that is, to make parents and everyone else abhor and discountenance all marriages that do not insure the health and happiness of future generations.  Love will show the way.  Far from being useless or detrimental to the human race, it is an instinct evolved by nature as a defence of the race against parental selfishness and criminal myopia regarding future generations.

Plato observed in his Statesman (310) that

“most persons form marriage connections without due regard to what is best for procreation of children.”  “They seek after wealth and power, which in matrimony are objects not worthy even of serious censure.”

But his remedy for this evil was, as we have seen (775), quite as bad as the evil itself, since it involved promiscuity and the elimination of chastity and family life.  Love accomplishes the results that Plato and Lycurgus aimed at, so far as healthy offspring is concerned, without making the same sacrifices and reducing human marriage to the level of the cattle-breeder.  It accomplishes, moreover, the same result that natural selection secures, and without its cruelty, by simply excluding from marriage the criminal, vicious, crippled, imbecile, incurably diseased and all who do not come up to its standard of health, vigor, and beauty.

While claiming that love is an instinct developed by nature as a defence against the short-sighted selfishness of parents who would sacrifice the future of the race to their own advantage or that of their children, I do not forget that in the past it has often secured its results in an illegitimate way.  That, however, was no fault of its own, being due to the artificial and foolish obstacles placed in its way.  Laws of nature cannot be altered by man, and if the safety valve is tied down the boiler is bound to explode.  In countries where marriages are habitually arranged by the parents with reference to rank or money alone, in defiance of love, the only “love-children” are necessarily illegitimate.  This has given rise to the notion that illegitimate children are apt to be more beautiful, healthy, and vigorous than the issue of regular marriages:  and, under the circumstances, it was true.  But for this topsy-turvyness, this folly, this immorality, we must not blame love, but those who persistently thwarted love—­or tried to thwart it.  As soon as love was allowed a voice in the arrangement of marriages illegitimacy decreased rapidly.  Had the rights of love been recognized sooner, it would have proved a useful ally of morality instead its craftiest enemy.[335]