The ethics behind animal use and rights have not been a popular topic within American history for very long, but the morals behind which animals are deemed fit to eat has been an argumentative subject. Different societies and ways of life have vastly dissimilar views as to how animals are meant to be utilized, and Ishmael criticizes the typical means of animal consumption within American society within the mid 19th century. By the use of irony and satire when explaining situations that are common in those who have never stepped foot on the sea, Melville points out the hypocrisy of “civilized” and normalized habits in chapter 65. This reveals the ignorance behind mindless consumption and gathering, humans carrying an unnecessary need for cruelty from convenience, not necessity. Thus, Melville emphasizes that critical attitudes towards moral standards of consumption is inherently hypocritical, questioning who is deserving of acting as judge.

Chapter 65, dubbed “The Whale as a Dish” begins with Ishmael explaining the brief history of whale meat as a food. It is the ending passage of the chapter that calls into question Melville’s point of moral hypocrisy towards animals as food. “But Stubb, he eats the whale by its own light, does he? And that is adding insult to injury, is it? Look at your knife-handle, there, my civilized and enlightened gourmand dining off that roast beef, what is that handle made of?—what but the bones of the brother of the very ox you are eating? And what do you pick your teeth with, after devouring that fat goose? With a feather of the same fowl.” (327) Stubb here is initially used as a device rather than a character, a conduit to introduce Ishmael’s parallels towards other very common practices within the dining world. “But Stubb, he eats the whale by its own light does he?” is ironic. Irony is utilized here for an emphatic effect, as adding “insult to injury” for a dead whale is pointless. After hunting the whale from previous chapters, Stubb is eating the rich meat besides a lamp lit by whale oil. Ishmael is also a man of the sea, so he does not condemn Stubb for eating the whale. As he points out later in the passage, there is an argument that denotes other dining practices as vastly similar. Oil is the byproduct of the whale, and it is what most whales are hunted for during this era. It makes sense for Stubb’s lamp to be lit by the very oil of the whale he is eating. Thus, Melville asks why is a “civilized and enlightened gourmand” capable of judgement towards Stubb? The experiences of whale men are not so common to most on land,  judgement becomes ill-placed.

Ishmael carries a lack of judgement for Stubb, but he addresses the reader to point out the civilized hypocrisy of the situation twice. Readers are told where exactly to look first, as Ishmael says “Look at your knife-handle, there…” The eyes are brought towards the cutlery on the table, followed by the “roast beef” the subject is dining on. He calls upon the reader to ponder afterwards, asking “what is that handle made of?” The assumption could be wood initially, but Ishmael eventually reveals “what but the bones of the brother of the very ox you are eating?” In the act of consuming the roast beef, there is an idea that many do not pay mind to what their utensil is made of. For many years, animal bones have been utilizes for tools and cutlery alike. As such, the situation presents itself as similar to Stubb’s consumption of whale meat. The “gourmand”, that is someone who is deeply fond of food and drink, is eating beef with another ox whose bones were used to make the very knife that cuts the meal. It is satire that criticizes the issue behind food use and waste, which then prompts readers to think to the relations behind how humans treat and exploit animals for their own use. 

Another example that Ishmael presents to the reader in comparison to Stubb’s whale is geese. He questions the reader once again, asking “And what do you pick your teeth with, after devouring that fat goose? With a feather of the same fowl.” Audiences are told once more where to look, but the language of this line differs from that of the ox. “Devouring” is more of a violent descriptor of consumption, and why is the goose specifically described as “fat”? The history behind this is simple. In order to create more appetizing geese, as well as the pate de foie gras mentioned earlier within the chapter, geese are force fed to fatten up their livers. The word “fat” is a hidden notion towards this exploitive practice, suggesting that the reader is aware of this entirely rational yet inhumane action. It gives leeway towards judgement, as humans additionally utilize the “feather of the same fowl” to “pick your teeth with” after dining. To use part of the animal that was just consumed in order to clean the bodily tool that ate it seems wholly normal, but it is this that is supposedly more civilized that Stubb’s whale and oil lamp.

Melville suggests that animal exploitation is part of the human condition, yet labels the reader as a “civilized and enlightened gourmand.” “Civilized” suggests that someone or something is to be characterized as having taste or refinement, highlighting the idea that Ishmael is almost “speaking” to the fact that Stubb, or whale men are not. The “civilized” world is entirely susceptible to hypocrisy in this case, as most civilized folk at the time were unaware of the toils of the sea unless they were whale men themselves, and would not care to eat a whale due to its impractical richness and meat. Additionally “enlightened” has many potential defined meanings, but there is one in particular that is ironic towards the situation. Enlightenment implies that someone free from ignorance or misinformation. The description is contradictory, as Melville hints within this chapter that most land dwellers are incapable of seeing the ironic paradox that presents itself within “civilized” dining customs. Ishmael presents these two scenarios to point out that the common practice of the times add towards the irony behind consuming whale meat next to its byproduct. 

Moral outrage towards human and animal relationships tend to be misplaced. Ishmael draws these parallels towards beef and fowl to show that exploitive practices are not unique to the job of whaling. It is hypocritical to draw judgement towards different practices that do not fit within a cultural norm. Until recently of the time within the book, geese were being plucked for feathers to create quills. There are inconsistencies that Ishmael points out, certain animal practices may change yet those of the present believe older customs that society are used to remain reasonable. What practices seem barbaric to the civilized and enlightened gourmand? Why are people inherently incapable of receiving criticisms towards what they believe to be ordinary? Whale men seem demonized because of their occupational hazards, but it is human for man to keep some kind of moral high ground.