After the Cold War, countries looked to the United States of America for guidance on how to control nuclear weapons. This is a common example of how the United States of America leads by example and leads other countries into a new era. As a result of the United States of America leading an increasing number of other countries in many issues, it is their responsibility to take responsibility and lead the other countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to the Cambridge dictionary, the definition of abdication is "not taking responsibility for something" (Cambridge definition). If the United States of America abandoned these issues in which it is at the forefront, it would cause a power struggle among countries and lead to global unrest. The United States of America is the backbone of international leadership in environmental, economic issues and problems, and is the suppression of terrorism. If these problems are not addressed properly, governments will become corrupt and abuse their power without anyone enforcing the laws. If the United States of America were silent on the international stage, China would step forward to take control, which would be disadvantageous to all of us. But before we talk about China, we need to talk about the moral obligations of leadership. position on the international scene. First, obligations cannot arise from the desire to maximize benefits. The strange nature of the results means that we can't force someone to take an action based on what happens next. Human reasoning is infinite and there is no way for a person to determine the complete end results of their actions. There will always be external sources that are not taken into account in the process. The implication of this argument is that all actions are permissible. While utilitarianism may be accurate, there is no greater probability that an action will give pleasure to more people than pain to more people. This gives each individual action the same impact, so we can't determine which actions we prefer over others. Kantian ethics actually solves this problem because only the intention of actions, which are quite easy to observe, is considered. Second, utility is infinitely regressive. I might be able to look at the consequences of an action, but what about the action that is triggered by taking that action, etc. An action can never be good or bad under util because it cannot be seen through a single utility value. Therefore, we should consider the matter from a Kantian point of view. However, we cannot use Kant in this view, even though we should. Because showing that a principle of non-beneficence is impossible and it is not possible to show that beneficence is obligatory because this thought shows the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Following Kantian theory it is demonstrated that morality does not exist. Therefore, there is no reason why we should argue the opposite of beneficence. We can never prove that we do not violate Kant's categorical imperative, because if we deny that we have violated it, this would be the basis of a negative existential claim. Therefore it is possible to demonstrate that we do not violate Kantian thought at all. So this begs the question: if Kantian theory is the best way to measure things, and it's impossible to follow, what do we do? This dilemma has puzzled economists and scientists alike, but we can't find an answer. Therefore, in the span of this essay, notwe should try to measure things at all. We should consider the issue impartially, without looking to any moral code. We can only try to maximize standard welfare for the greatest number of people in the world. This way we can perceive everyone as equal. At the moment this is not the case and, based on this ruling, we can think of everyone as equal. This means that everyone is valued as having the same amount of life, which is the most moral and fair way to judge our decisions. Another reason is that this is the best way for humans to judge policy makers. Government officials cannot evaluate things only on a single case or a specific case. They can only look at generalities, which means they can't look at just one thing. If China were to take over the United States of America's role in bioethics, it would cause a backlash from multiple countries, including places like Kenya, Afghanistan, and Iran. China is making progress in multiple medical research, including the use of embryos to try to cure diseases. Although this seems positive at first glance, China does not stop to think about the consequences. While the United States of America is just starting to consider this type of research and conduct numerous preliminary studies, eight clinical trials are already underway in China (1). They dive headfirst into the abyss without knowing what's inside. China is entering uncharted territory with nothing to stop it. If China is already doing this without international leadership, think about what would happen if it became the leader. Their mentality would spread to other countries, which would lead to a third world war. More countries with their only concern being power? This is a recipe for disaster. China has always prioritized power over everything, which will not benefit any country in the long run. China will abuse this power in other areas as well, which brings me to my next point. Chinese officials are already exposed to bribes, blackmail and corrupt money. Just two months ago, the mayor of a large city was accused of corruption. Sun Zhengcai, the mayor of Chongqing, was accused of accepting over $27 million in bribes and embezzling two thousand two to two thousand seventeen dollars. Sun Zhengcai was the youngest member of the Chinese Communist Party and was expected to lead the party before he was accused of corruption. Sun Zhengcai was sentenced to life in prison, but the price was paid. It gave us a great example of what would happen if China were to lead the international scene. This is just one example of how the Chinese become corrupt when given the chance. They will do anything for money and power, even if it is illegal. If China were to take the lead on many different economic problems, it would make the problems worse and would simply use the money that was supposed to help other countries and use it for itself. This would increase the amount of power China already had, which would lead to a slippery slope of power. China would then be able to conquer the world. China has an iron grip on its people. This is not good. Any body that tries to oppose government corruption is “silenced”. Last year, China sentenced a human rights activist to eight years in prison, the harshest sentence handed down so far in a government crackdown on activism. If anyone tries to oppose the Chinese government at this time, they will be arrested. If this were to happen globally, China would be able to eliminate all of its enemies, which would lead to the downfall of the human race. If China were given international leadership, once again, this would extend to.