Does Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Ethics have any affinities with what we have now come to call virtue ethics? If so, what is the relationship between those affinities and the more widely recognized influence of Karl Barth? Moberly seeks to answer these questions through close analysis of the Ethics and engagement with other interpreters of Bonhoeffer, while discussing the nature of virtue ethics in a Christian context. The answers may be surprising, but they are certainly rewarding for anyone wanting to better (...) understand Bonhoeffer and to see how his work could be helpful for current ethical debates. (shrink)

In this article Moberly considers in detail the question of how well the translation of Bonhoeffer's Ethics for the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works series represents his thought. While recognizing the difficulties the translators faced, and some successes achieved, Moberly highlights a number of ways in which the translation is flawed through linguistic weaknesses, questionable editorial decisions, and through translations which obscure or distort Bonhoeffer's thought theologically or philosophically. These issues render the translation unreliable for scholarly work, leading the author (...) to question whether for a critical edition there is sufficient warrant to retranslate Bonhoeffer's Ethics. (shrink)

When listening to degraded speech, such as speech delivered by a cochlear implant, listeners make use of top-down linguistic knowledge to facilitate speech recognition. Lexical knowledge supports speech recognition and enhances the perceived clarity of speech. Yet, the extent to which lexical knowledge can be used to effectively compensate for degraded input may depend on the degree of degradation and the listener’s age. The current study investigated lexical effects in the compensation for speech that was degraded via noise-vocoding in younger (...) and older listeners. In an online experiment, younger and older normal-hearing listeners rated the clarity of noise-vocoded sentences on a scale from 1 to 7. Lexical information was provided by matching text primes and the lexical content of the target utterance. Half of the sentences were preceded by a matching text prime, while half were preceded by a non-matching prime. Each sentence also consisted of three key words of high or low lexical frequency and neighborhood density. Sentences were processed to simulate CI hearing, using an eight-channel noise vocoder with varying filter slopes. Results showed that lexical information impacted the perceived clarity of noise-vocoded speech. Noise-vocoded speech was perceived as clearer when preceded by a matching prime, and when sentences included key words with high lexical frequency and low neighborhood density. However, the strength of the lexical effects depended on the level of degradation. Matching text primes had a greater impact for speech with poorer spectral resolution, but lexical content had a smaller impact for speech with poorer spectral resolution. Finally, lexical information appeared to benefit both younger and older listeners. Findings demonstrate that lexical knowledge can be employed by younger and older listeners in cognitive compensation during the processing of noise-vocoded speech. However, lexical content may not be as reliable when the signal is highly degraded. Clinical implications are that for adult CI users, lexical knowledge might be used to compensate for the degraded speech signal, regardless of age, but some CI users may be hindered by a relatively poor signal. (shrink)

Unrealistic optimism is a bias that leads people to believe, with respect to a specific event or hazard, that they are more likely to experience positive outcomes and/or less likely to experience negative outcomes than similar others. The phenomenon has been seen in a range of health-related contexts—including when prospective participants are presented with the risks and benefits of participating in a clinical trial. In order to test for the prevalence of unrealistic optimism among participants of early-phase oncology trials, we (...) conducted a survey with patients over 18 years of age who were enrolled in a phase I, phase I/II, or phase II clinical cancer trial in the New York City area between August 2008 and October 2009. Participants in our study were asked to compare their own chances of experiencing a range of risks and benefits related to the trial they were enrolled in with the chances of the other trial participants. We found a significant optimistic bias in their responses. Respondents tended to overestimate the benefits of the trial they were enrolled in and underestimate its risks. In addition, we found no significant relationship between respondents’ understanding of the trial’s purpose and how susceptible they were to unrealistic optimism. Our findings suggest that improving the consent process for oncology studies requires more than addressing deficits in understanding. (shrink)