The topic of incest is not one I thought I would be discussing, especially in an academic setting, but Hume’s use of incest as an example in claiming that moral judgements are based in sentiment caught my attention. For fans of works of fantasy, incest is almost commonplace, and in only some cases is it perceived as wrong or disgusting. Story settings are typically early to middle ages; main characters typically have pet dragons and fight with swords to win thrones, so familial relations are the least of our worries. However, there is one franchise that came to mind when reading Hume’s reasons that has fans acting hypocritically in our disgust for incest. Game of Thrones and prequel spin-off show House of the Dragon offers us a perfect example of Hume’s claim that moral judgements are not based in reason: fans love and root for the uncle-niece relationship, while hating and wishing for the downfall of the twincest in the other.

To begin, let’s look at what Hume has to say about moral judgements. Hume sets out to answer the question of why human beings see something so commonplace within animals so disgusting. He uses incest to exemplify his reasons, but it is important to note, he is detailing how all moral judgements for human beings are perceived. He first looks at the common answer that human beings have the skill of reason, so we are able to reason and know that moral judgements, incest, are wrong; however, he claims this is arguing in a circle. For us to be able to reason something is wrong, the initial disgust or cause of reasoning must exist. That is, in order to get to the “fact” that incest is wrong, we must already have a feeling of incest being wrong; however, in order to have the feeling of incest being wrong, we must already “know” that incest is wrong. It’s a paradox that can be solved simply by Hume: “The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards the action.” (15) As an example, let’s look at Hume’s example for this, look at willful murder. If we set out to explain just why murder is seen as a vice, can we bring forth reasons that are not wrapped in our sentiment? No, we cannot. Taking the life of someone else has no matter of fact reasons for it being so. It is a moral judgment that willful murder is wrong, one I obviously agree with, but that doesn’t change the fact that the moral judgment of murder rests not on fact but on sentiment and feeling.

As much as I feel uncomfortable in the acknowledgement that moral judgements cannot just be, as matters of fact are, I find Hume’s claim to be persuasive. I want nothing more than my reasoning of, “It just feels wrong” to be taken as gospel and universally accepted; however, I understand Hume’s points and find myself agreeing that my sentiment doesn’t equate to matters of fact. This account is persuasive to me for a few reasons. First, I cannot think of a matter of fact reasoning for why moral judgements, or for this case incest, is “bad.” No matter how long or hard I think, I come back to matters of my own feelings or opinions. Second, the basis of his claims feel rooted in logic. The paradox of reasoning why something is wrong and the necessity of the wrongness feeling to exist as a prerequisite is one that I cannot see being solved in any other way than Hume already has. It reminds me of Pierce’s thought of the irritation of doubt. There has to be an inkling of doubt in the action you’re performing for your skills of reason to kick in and decide that the action is bad; however, how are you to have doubt if you have yet to reason?

To exemplify Hume's claims further, I’d like to discuss a popular HBO franchise, and highlight Levi-Strauss’s thought on culture. It was said in class that Levi-Strauss claimed that the institution of an incest taboo is the step between nature and culture. This, too, will be shown in my example. Look now to two tv shows, House of the Dragon, which is set at about 130 A.C., and Game of Thrones, which is set in 298 A.C.  These two shows follow monarchy and patriarchy in a fantasy land where everyone wants to be the ruler of the seven kingdoms. As we all know, a key part of monarchy in general is incest. The need and desire to marry rich or of noble station, and in some cases, like in House of the Dragon, to keep bloodlines pure for magical purposes, brings us to this hypocritical notion of right and wrong. House of the Dragon, canonically taking place more than a century before, showcases the relationship of a young Targaryen woman, set to inherit her father’s throne and title, and her uncle, who is set to inherit nothing. The first season takes place over the span of about 20 years. We watch as our princess, Rhaenyra, blossoms into a woman of marrying age and, despite her father urging her to marry someone noble, falls in love with her uncle, Daemon. As fans of this show, (don’t think differently of me) we, too, are falling in love: with the characters, the actors, and yes, this uncle-niece marriage. Even within the show, the characters do not look with disgust at the fact an uncle marries his niece, no, marriages within the family are commonplace for the Targaryens. Later on the show, cousins are betrothed to one another and siblings are forced to wed and bed for the sake of the throne. They only find it appalling that before they were wed, he soiled her virtue. That is, he kissed her and defiled her in a public setting. However, if we turn to Game of Thrones, which again is more than a century after House of the Dragon, we see a much different attitude towards the Targaryen family and incest in general, which proves Levi-Strauss’ idea of nature and culture. In this show, we hear whispers and gossip about the Targaryen family and how they married within the family to maintain their pure blood line, for various reasons, and how it is “The Targaryen Way” to love one’s family in such a manner. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, we are privy to knowledge the people of the seven kingdoms are not: The King’s Wife, at the time of season one, is in love with her twin brother, and the King’s “three children” are really bred from the twincest. This is the major plot of the first season -- it gets a ten year old boy pushed out of a window with the intent to kill in episode one -- and we are supposed to be outraged at the fact. The kicker is, the fans of the show are! The fans of the show (me included) are disgusted at this relationship between the twins, despite hearing notions of the Targaryen’s and their incest. We root for their downfall; we cheer when the illegitimate son is murdered and yell at the tv when, in the end as the castle crumbles around our used-to-be-Queen, the twin brother, who had found what should have been love with the first lady knight, lays down his own life so he can die in his sister’s arms. There is no logic or reason to be seen here. We have no reason to root for one and prey on the other; however, I think Levi-Strauss’s point goes well here. We first see the Seven Kingdoms in Game of Thrones and it might be full of castles and horses and swords, but we can clearly see a division in the seven kingdoms. They have their own cultures and ways of doing things. These Seven kingdoms are within the same “continent,” but they’re so individualistic by themselves that they feel sophisticated in a way. I think this is the culture part of Levi-Strauss’s idea, but I think it’s easier seen when in comparison to House of the Dragon. This show follows only one family’s story but it is much different in terms of the culture we are shown. We see precious little different cultures or ways of living, we are shown Targaryens and the Targaryen way; therefore, when the brother is betrothed to the sister and the youngest brother says he would marry his sister if it was his “duty,” when the cousins are betrothed to form an alliance and keep the family name strong, or even when the uncle marries his niece, we know no different. It’s merely a century and some change since the Conquest, this is just how things are done -- no disgust, no reason, no sentiment. House of the Dragon is the nature while Game of Thrones is the culture.

In conclusion, Hume and Levi-Strauss provide us with rather interesting and persuasive ideas in relation to incest and moral judgements. Without the feeling of wrongdoing, how are we to know anything we are doing is wrong? We can’t. The feeling of wrongdoing rests within ourselves and our own feelings and sentiments towards them. That doesn’t mean we should ignore those feelings and do the things we feel are bad or wrong, but it does shed light on what we think is reason. And look no further than the entertainment industry to portray the perfect example of such, with Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon. It might, however, say something about a real established society, in Levi-Strauss’s terms of having an incest taboo, that we can so easily waffle on our moral judgements based on the contents of a fantasy show.