For a broad hypothetical example, does a historian arguing that slaves' conditions in the Roman Empire were worse than in their contemporary neighbors have any ethical obligation to acknowledge if some of the numbers they use to come to their conclusion come from a paper arguing that Romans took relatively good care of their slaves?
Or can you cite facts freely without needing to add caveats or explanations as to why you are interpreting/contextualizing the information differently?
I think ethical obligation may be too strong, but adding context and nuance to one's sources is a best-practice for good scholarship, especially if the sources might be controversial. If you cite things seemingly uncritically, it may lead readers to question whether you're attempting to twist sources to support your conclusion irrespective of whether you actually are, for instance.