This is quite a strawman argument. Only, you're putting up the strawman and I'm bored enough to break it down. Here's an easy way to find out if you admire an occupation (I, of course, honor human beings before intangible occupations...but this thread is specifically about occupations):
Are you employed? Have you EVER, in your entire life, wished or fantasized about working in some particular field for a living ("What do you do for a living?" have is often a question about one's own occupation)? If the answer is yes to either one of these questions, then you have, in fact, admired certain occupational positions throughout your life. This wasn't meant to be as deep as, "Who has been your favorite human being(s) in life?" This is more like, "What career would you choose if you had these two choices?"
Of course, that argument fails because one doesn't typically choose or desire a particular occupation due to it being admirable. Instead they choose/desire it because they think it would be more enjoyable or more profitable. I wanted to be a stand-up comedian at one point.
On top of that, if there is a forced choice between two occupations, the deciding factor would not be the "admirability" of the two occupations.
So even though the answer is obviously "yes" to your two questions, the fact that you mis-attribute that affirmative response to some sort of "admirability" of the occupation is pure nonsense.
On top of that, this thread is NOT "specifically about occupations". it's specifically about the PEOPLE who work in certain occupations. i.e. Businessman vs. Politician.
This is obvious given the word choice of the question. If the question was "Which occupation is more admirable: Business or Politics"
Then it could be argued as having been about the occupations originally, but the question (and thread title) was "Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?"
As most people would agree, the word "Who" specifically relates to "what or which
persons".
The terms "politician" and "businessman" refer to the people who hold specific occupations, but are often used colloquially to describe the occupation itself. Thus, the presence of the "Who" in the question and thread title clearly indicates that the idea being discussed is the individual people who are in these occupations, not the actual occupations.
Obviously,you are now moving the goal posts. This can be supported with eth evidence from an earlier response by you:
But how often does the profession shape the character of the person? Was Mother Theresa a saint because she was born a saint? Or did her profession shape the way she acted in society? Surely you can admire Obama for his countless large scale "reforms," none of which can happen to a simpleton with no occupation.
Here you also talk about the person's admnirability and attempt to use fallacy to justify the association of individual character traits with an occupation. You also present an "almost" argument in the form of rhetorical questions that implies said individual character trait is determined by the occupation.
However, such associations are erroneous because if the occupation
did shape the character of the individual, we could have what actually occurs which is a range of different people in certain occupations who's particular character trait in question ranges from admirable to deplorable.
Using Mother Teresa as an example, her occupation was that of a Catholic Nun. It doesn't take much searching to find examples of Catholic nuns who are as despicable as Mother Teresa would be considered admirable. Just look into the Irish child abuse scandal and what happened in the orphanages.
Same occupation, totally different behaviors.
Thus, anyone who does not create idealized and imaginary archetypes for each occupation that they look at with the adoration of a small child cannot possibly answer the given question.
If you really wanted to know about the "admirability" of the
occupations, then you did a piss-poor job of wording the question.
But let's assume that you hadn't done a piss-poor job of wording the question, and you actually asked about the occupations instead of the people, in such a case I would say "Neither is more admirable. Occupations are not particularly admirable"
This is because admirability is not a trait which should be applied to occupations, IMO.
Instead, only the character traits of the individual should be looked at.
For example, I used to be a construction worker and ran my own business. Now I'm a personal caregiver who takes care of a man with a brain injury. My own personal character hasn't changed with my occupation.
If I was admirable when I was a construction worker, then I am just admirable now. If I am admirable now, then I was just as admirable then. If I
wasn't considered admirable then, then I
shouldn't be considered admirable now. If I'm not considered admirable now, then I shouldn't have been considered admirable then.
Nothing about me as a person has changed because of my change in occupation. Now, I admit that for many people, the esteem in which my current occupation is held is typically higher than the esteem of my previous occupation (and possibly vice versa).
But I don't buy into these stereotypes.
But my Dad thought it was adorable and even wrote a sermon about it.