Event 1a: Albert Freedman and Daniel Enright convince Charles Van Doren to participate in the quiz show “Twenty One21”Description: Albert noticed Charles while he was interviewing for another quiz show “Tic-Tac-DoughDoe ” . Albert then decided that Charles would be an excellent replacement for Herbert Stempel, due to his intellectual background. Both Daniel and Albert then met Charles and tried to convince him to participate in the quiz show "21", offering to provide him with questions and answers before each show. Ethical problem:1. What moral process did Charles go through that led him to reject the offer?2. Was the proposal that Albert and Daniel made to Charles ethical? Ethical Analysis: Daniel and Albert argued why Charles should have taken part in the rigged quiz. Firstly, Charles would help paint a good picture for intellects and benefit the cause of education. Secondly, what they were planning wasn't really a deception. They argued that Charles was truly an intellect, well educated and knowledgeable, so they would not actually deceive the public, but would simply control the content they were viewing. By putting Charles on the show as long as he remained popular, they could therefore control the image they were portraying to viewers, and thus optimize their ability to improve the image of intellectuals. The arguments made seemed to make sense, and Charles did. he didn't or couldn't think of any arguments to counter. However, he thought the proposal was wrong; he said, "I'm just trying to imagine what Kant would think." and “It just doesn't feel right.” Even though Charles couldn't understand it, he intuitively thought it was wrong. What appears... in the middle of the paper... until the end. However, contrary to Kant, personal ethical egoism states that a person would believe they should act in their own self-interest, but would make no claims about what others should do. Thus, as ethical egoism would argue, Herbert's action is explained based on self-interest. For reasons of doing so, he also implies that it might be right to do so since he did so out of self-interest. Herbert's revelation of the truth can be seen as a form of denunciation. However, in the definition of complaint, the act of reporting should be understood as a moral protest; the motive must be to correct some mistake and not to seek revenge or personal advancement. Therefore, if yes, in case Herbert's motive was to seek revenge, then the act will not be considered a real complaint at all..