Event 1a: Albert Freedman and Daniel Enright persuading Charles Van Doren to join the game show "Twenty One21" Description: Albert spotted Charles while Charles was interviewing for another quiz show "Tic-Tac-DoughDoe » . Albert then decided that Charles would make an excellent replacement for Herbert Stempel, because of his intellectual training. Daniel and Albert then met Charles and tried to persuade him to join the '21' quiz, offering to provide him with the questions and answers before each show. Ethical Question: 1. What moral process did Charles follow that led him to ultimately refuse the offer?2. Was the proposition that Albert and Daniel presented to Charles ethical?Ethical Analysis:Daniel and Albert made arguments to explain why Charles should participate in the rigged television quiz show. First, Charles would help give a good image of the intellect and benefit the cause of education. Second, what they were planning wasn't really a deception. They argued that Charles was truly an intellect, well-educated and knowledgeable – therefore, they would not really deceive the public, but would simply control the content they posted. By putting Charles in the series as long as he remains popular, they could then control the image they sent to viewers, and thus optimize their ability to promote the image of intellectuals. It seemed like the arguments being made made some sense, and Charles did. not or could think of any argument to counter. Yet he thought the proposition was false; he mentioned: “I'm just trying to imagine what Kant would make of it. and “It just doesn’t seem right.” Even though Charles couldn't put his finger on it, he intuitively thought it was wrong. Which appears......in the middle of the paper......to the end. However, unlike Kant, personal ethical egoism states that a person would feel that they should act in their own self-interest, but would not make any claims about what anyone else should do. Therefore, according to ethical egoism, this explains Herbert's action based on self-interest. The reasons for doing so, it also implies that it might be right to do so because he did it out of self-interest. Herbert's revelation of the truth can be seen as a form of denunciation. However, in the definition of denunciation, the act of denunciation must be undertaken as a moral protest; the motive must be to correct a mistake and not to seek revenge or personal advancement. Therefore, if Herbert's motive was revenge, then the act will not be considered true denunciation at all..