If we are to see in the Pequod under Ahab a symbol of the teleocratic state, of the state conceived as a mechanism for achieving a substantive purpose [note oakeshott phrase earlier], we first need to identify precisely what distinguishes the hunting of Moby-Dick from the hunting of sperm whales generally, and why this difference points towards two essentially different visions of the state. After all, the hunting of one particular sperm whale for vengeance does not seem more purposeful than hunting sperm whales generally for profit; the latter no less than the former aims at an easily specified end. If we concentrate on the similarly purposeful quality of the quest for vengeance and toil for profit, Moby-Dick might present itself most readily as a critique merely of some kinds of state-mandated purpose, rather than as the more radical critique of end-driven societies that I am proposing it is.
A clue to what is qualitatively distinct about Ahab's purposefulness, however, can be found in Starbuck's objections to dedicating the Pequod's voyage to Moby-Dick's demise. In a way typical of him, Starbuck disparages Ahab's proposed quest by complaining that it departs from the contractual and financial obligations of their enterprise. Although his argument proves ineffectual in the face of Ahab's charisma, and is limited by the first mate's constitutional indisposition to consider matters otherwise than as they present themselves within the structures provided to him by convention, law, or piety, Starbuck's appeal to economic interest touches on an essential point, namely that Ahab views the killing of Moby-Dick not as a means to some further end, but as an end in itself. Although perfectly happy to hunt Moby-Dick "if it fairly comes in the way of the business we follow," Starbuck delivers what he considers a knockout blow to Ahab's ambitions by asking, "How many barrels will thy vengeance yield thee even if thou gettest it, Captain Ahab? It will not fetch thee much in our Nantucket market" (235).
