Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick or, The Whale explores obsession, nature, and the limitations of human understanding. Beyond the hunt for the white whale, Melville explores the moral contradictions embedded in nineteenth-century — as well as modern — society. Through Ishmael’s digressive and philosophical narration, Melville pauses the action to reflect on the ethics and symbolism of whaling. In Chapter 24, “The Advocate”, Ishmael defends whaling as a noble and heroic profession, elevating whalers to a divine rank by appealing to religion, history, and national pride. However, Melville deliberately constructs tension between admiration and absurdity to expose the instability of society’s attempts to justify violence through borrowing political and religious rhetoric. When Ishmael exclaims, “No good blood in their veins? They have something better than royal blood there…Good again; but then all confess that somehow whaling is not respectable. Whaling not respectable? Whaling is imperial! By Old English statutory law, the whale is declared ‘a royal fish’” (Melville 121), Melville uses this exaggerated rhetoric to reveal the blurred line between respect reluctantly being granted and that which is truly being earned through good merit. By having Ishmael place whalemen on a pedestal among religious and historical leaders, Melville prompts readers to not only reflect on the morality of whaling but also reflect on how Western culture and society rationalize violent and exploitative labor. In this way, Moby-Dick becomes a profound meditation on how human societies disguise destruction in the language of dignity and tradition.  

Melville purposely breaks Ishmael’s linear flow of narration to draw attention to language and persuasion. Consistently, throughout the novel, Ishmael has guided the audience, like a tour guide, recounting his struggles on his journey to find a crew and his passion for whaling. However, in this chapter, he abandons his tour guide narrative and becomes a sort of preacher, or public speaker, to the audience. His tone changes from observational to sermon-like; His tone changes from descriptive and observational to full of exclamations and advocacy. He proclaims phrases such as “Whaling not respectable? Whaling is imperial!”; How dare the audience believe that whaling is not imperial at all, Ishmael replies absurdly. By using these phrases throughout this chapter, Ishmael seeks not only to describe but to persuade. It compels the audience to question the respectability that he is advocating for. This rhetorical shift is done to show Melville’s interest in how language can shape moral perspective. Ishmael’s tone reflects enthusiasm and pride, yet, to the attentive reader, his exaggeration feels uneasy — as if Melville is warning us about the power of the nature of language and how it can mask violent acts. The juxtaposition of Ishmael’s enthusiastic advocacy with the moral depravity of whaling shows Melville’s critique of moral justification and whaling as an “imperial” symbol. Language can conceal cruelty under the guise of an imperial purpose. 

When Ishmael calls the whale a “royal fish”, he is aligning the whaling profession with monarchy, divine right, and religious authorities. He draws from religious and political figures to position whalers above any other profession. By invoking such figures, Ishmael seeks to prove to the audience that whaling is not simply just a brutal industry but one that has shaped civilization and society. By citing “Old English statutory law”, he draws on a deep tradition that associates power with legitimacy. According to claims made by Ishmael, whaling goes beyond the human surface, it goes into the religious figures above and beyond. The more Ishmael advocates for the “heroism” that is whaling, the more his argument becomes absurd to the audience; putting whalers on a pedestal among biblical figures makes the audience question Ishmael as a narrator. Yet with Ishmael’s absurd narrative, Melville’s irony emerges in this chapter; by exaggerating the sacredness of killing whales, he criticizes the instability of society’s attempts to justify violence through borrowed religious rhetoric. By having Ishmael place whalers on a pedestal among religious and political leaders, it makes us reflect on not just the morality of whaling but also, in a broader way, on how society rationalizes violent and exploitative labor. The audience can sense that Ishmael is “trying too hard” to romanticize the whaling practice. The grandeur of Ishmael’s imagery masks the brutal labor behind it — the blood, the sacrifices, and the exploitation of men and animals — and Melville uses this rhetoric to reflect nineteenth-century society. 

Melville constructs this tension between admiration and absurdity to reveal how language can distort morality. Ishmael’s speech feels overly rehearsed, as though he is defending something that was not asked to be defended. At first, Ishmael’s defense appears to be sincere, but as he continues with more passion, his enthusiasm starts to become a mask for his guilt. The audience can sense this dissonance, recognizing the irony that underlies his praise. Melville’s critique moves beyond whaling itself; he instead exposes society’s attempts to mask violence, when it comes to serve economic or national interests, with honorable language. Ishmael’s speech becomes a parody for moral justification, showing how easily words can turn violence into virtue. His invocation of religion and monarchical symbolism reveals how society borrows rhetoric from religious authorities and traditions to validate acts of violence. By positioning whalers alongside kings and saints, Ishmael is not only defending the profession but is producing a new ideal around whalers, where they are the saints and their conquests are celebrated as destiny instead of cruelty. What first appears as admiration becomes a mirror for hypocrisy. Melville’s irony through Ishmael exposes a pattern that extends beyond the nineteenth-century whaling industry. Ishmael’s exaggerated defense becomes a timeless reflection on society’s attempts to justify violence through the language of virtue. The same rhetorical patterns shown through the justification of whaling appear in the present with warfare, labor, and environmental exploitation. The glorification of harmful practices continues under new names and ideologies. 

Although Melville wrote Moby-Dick in the mid-nineteenth century, the morality he exposes in “The Advocate” remains relevant in the modern world. Ishmael’s exaggerated defense of whaling mirrors the way contemporary societies continue to glorify forms of violence and exploitation through persuasive rhetoric. Just as Ishmael insists that whaling is “imperial” and “royal”, modern institutions — like the United States government — and figures often frame destructive and exploitative labor as honorable, necessary, or even patriotic. Even today, governments rely on nationalistic language to romanticize warfare, often describing soldiers as heroes and their actions as sacrifices for freedom, while minimizing the violence and trauma that soldiers either go through themselves or the damage that they cause to others. Similarly, corporations use carefully crafted marketing to disguise the environmental destruction as “progressive”. Oil drilling, deforestation, and industrial expansions are frequently presented as an “advancement” for society — just as Ishmael frames whaling as the noble foundation for civilization. Melville’s insight into this retro rival hypocrisy shows his understanding that societies rely on language to mask discomforting truths, Ishmael’s speech becomes a case study on how ideology functions, how powerful voices can transform cruelty into virtue through repetition and enthusiasm. The same strategy persists today through political propaganda, consumer advertising, and media narrative that control what we consume and how we consume it. By exposing the absurdity in Ishmael’s glorification and romanticization of whaling, Melville shows awareness that this rhetoric will last through decades and that rhetoric will continue to shape morality. His critique invites the audience to question the narrative that societies present to them; form their own opinion on what truly is “necessary” and “honorable” and to recognize the moral instability that arises whenever violence is rebranded as virtue. 

In “The Advocate” Melville transforms what could have been a simple defense of whaling into a profound critique of how societies justify violence through language, authority, and tradition. Ishmael’s grand speech is filled with admiration, grand gestures, and religious imagery, appearing as a celebration of whalers and their industry. Yet, beneath all of Ishmael’s confident rhetoric, there lies an unsettling irony. The more Ishmael glorifies whaling as “imperial” and “royal”, the more his language becomes absurd. Melville uses this tension between sincerity and exaggeration to expose the fragility of moral reasoning when it is built upon borrowed symbols of tradition. Through Ishmael’s voice, Melville reveals how these “noble” ideas can easily be distorted, allowing nations to disguise exploitation and violence as virtue. Ultimately, “The Advocate” stands as a timeless reflection on the dangers that rhetoric has on morality. Melville reminds us to perceive language carefully and diligently. Language has the power to inspire but also to deceive us. His critique throughout this chapter endures as a warning, violence is often dressed as virtue, and individuals need to decipher the truth.