After the Cold War, countries looked to the United States of America for advice on how to control nuclear weapons. This is a common example of how the United States of America is leading by example and leading other countries into a new era. Since the United States of America is leading a growing number of other countries in many areas, it is their responsibility to take responsibility and lead other countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not 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 were to abandon the issues in which it leads, it would result in a power struggle and lead to global unrest. The United States of America is the backbone of international leadership in environmental, economic, and economic issues. problems, and that is the repression of terrorism. If these problems are not addressed properly, governments become corrupt and abuse their power with no one to enforce the laws. If the United States of America remains silent on the international stage, China will take control, which would be disadvantageous to all of us. But before we can talk about China, we need to talk about the moral obligations of leaders. position on the international scene. First, obligations cannot arise from the desire to maximize benefits. The strangeness of the nature of the results means that we cannot force someone to act based on what happens next. Human reasoning is infinite and there is no way for a single person to determine the complete end results of their actions. There will always be external sources that are not considered in the process. The implication of this argument is that all actions are permissible. Even if utilitarianism may be correct, an action is no more likely to give pleasure to more people than pain to more people. This gives every action the same impact, so we cannot determine which actions to prefer over others. Kantian ethics actually solves this problem because only the intention of the actions is examined, these are quite easy to examine. Second, utility is infinitely regressive. I might be able to look at the consequences of an action, but what about the action triggered by that action, etc.? An action can never be good or bad under util because it cannot be examined through a single utility value. So we should look at this from a Kantian perspective. However, we cannot use Kant from this perspective, even if we should. Because showing that a principle of non-benefit is impossible and it is not possible to show that beneficence is obligatory because this thought shows the error that you deny the antecedent. Following Kantian theory shows that there is no such thing as morality. There is therefore no reason for us to advocate the opposite of beneficence. We can never prove that we are not violating Kant's categorical imperative, because if we denied having violated it, this would form the basis of a negative existential claim. It is thus possible to prove that we are absolutely not violating Kantian thought. So this raises a question: if Kantian theory is the best way to measure things and it is impossible to follow it, what do we do? This dilemma has intrigued economists andscientists, but we cannot find an answer to this question. So, for the purposes of this essay, we shouldn't try to measure things at all. We should look at the issue impartially, without looking to any moral code. We can only seek to maximize the standard well-being of as many people in the world as possible. This way we can perceive everyone as equal. This is not the case at the moment and, under this ruling, we can consider everyone equal. This means that everyone is assessed as having the same lifespan, which is the most moral and fair way to judge our decisions. Another reason is that it is the best way for humans to judge policy makers. Government officials cannot assess things just on a single case or on 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 from the United States of America in bioethics, it would provoke negative reactions from several countries, including Kenya, Afghanistan and Iran. China is moving forward with multiple medical research, including using embryos to try to cure diseases. Although this seems good on the surface, China does not stop to think about the consequences. While the United States of America is only beginning to show interest in this type of research and is conducting numerous preliminary trials, eight clinical trials are already underway in China (1). They dive headfirst into the abyss without knowing what's inside. China is venturing into unknown territory with nothing able to stop it. If China is already doing this without international leadership, think about what would happen if it became the leader. Their mindset would spread to other countries, leading to a third world war. Several countries whose only concern is power? That's a recipe for disaster. China has always prioritized power over everything, which in the long run will not benefit any country. China will abuse this power in other areas, which brings me to my next point. Chinese officials are already prone to bribery, blackmail and corrupt money. Only two months ago, the mayor of a major city was accused of corruption. Sun Zhengcai, the mayor of Chongqing, was accused of accepting bribes of more than $27 million and embezzling money from two thousand two to two thousand seventeen. Sun Zhengcai was the youngest member of the Chinese Communist Party and was expected to lead the party before being accused of corruption. Sun Zhengcai was sentenced to life in prison, but the price was paid. He gave us a great example of what would happen if China led the world. This is just one example of how corrupt the Chinese are when given the chance. They will do anything to get money and power, even if it is illegal. If China were to take the lead in many different economic problems, they would make the problems worse and just take the money that is supposed to help other countries and use it for themselves. This would increase the power China already has, leading to a slippery slope of power. China would then be able to conquer the world. China exercises an iron grip on its people. It's not good. Any organization that attempts to speak out against government corruption is “silenced.” China sentenced a human rights activist to eight years in prison last year, the harshest sentence handed down so far in a government crackdown on.