On the Ethics of Citing Living Thinkers

 

Your question touches upon a fascinating tension in intellectual ethics: the relationship between respect for persons and the pursuit of truth through dialogue. Let me assure you from the outset—there is nothing inherently unethical about engaging with the work of living philosophers. Indeed, one might argue the opposite: that philosophy thrives precisely through engagement with contemporary voices.

The Living Conversation

Consider the perspective offered by Joel Marks in his recurring column "Moral Moments." Marks exemplifies the value of contemporary philosophical reflection, addressing present concerns with fresh insight. His work on "Unprincipled Principles" demonstrates how living thinkers can challenge our assumptions in ways that directly respond to the current moment. Philosophy is not merely an archaeological discipline, excavating the wisdom of the dead; it is a living practice that requires ongoing dialogue.

The ancient Socrates himself—invoked in the magazine's "Dear Socrates" column—practiced philosophy through direct engagement with his contemporaries. His dialogic method was fundamentally about encountering living minds, testing ideas in real-time conversation. To restrict yourself solely to dead thinkers would be to adopt a monastic quietism that Socrates would likely have found philosophically suspect.

Responsibility and Recognition

Hans Lenk, in his examination "What is Responsibility?", explores different types of responsibility—including intellectual responsibility. When we engage with living thinkers, we accept certain obligations: to represent their views accurately, to cite them properly, and to acknowledge their ongoing contribution to human knowledge. This is not a burden but an opportunity for ethical intellectual practice.

The ethical consideration here is not whether to cite living persons, but how to do so responsibly. You must ensure proper attribution, respect copyright and fair use guidelines, and recognize that these thinkers are active participants in shaping philosophical discourse. Their living status makes your ethical obligations more immediate, not more problematic.

The Value of Contemporary Engagement

Raymond Tallis, whose column "Tallis in Wonderland" includes pieces like "A Conversation with my Neighbour," demonstrates how contemporary philosophers address urgent questions that demand present-tense thinking. Issues of ecological ethics, medical bioethics, artificial intelligence, and climate change require voices who understand our current predicament—not merely historical wisdom, however valuable that remains.

Dead thinkers offer us invaluable perspective, the long view of perennial questions. But living thinkers offer something equally necessary: responsiveness to our particular moment in history. They can adjust their arguments, respond to criticism, and evolve their thinking in ways that enrich philosophical discourse.

A Balanced Approach

The wisest course is not to choose between the living and the dead, but to embrace both. Let your work be a conversation across time—drawing on the foundational insights of historical philosophy while engaging with contemporary thinkers who apply philosophical methods to present concerns. This creates a richer, more textured understanding than either approach alone could provide.

The ethics of intellectual work demand honesty, proper attribution, and respect for the labor of others—whether they wrote yesterday or two millennia ago. If you meet these obligations, citing living philosophers is not merely permissible but philosophically vital. You are participating in the great ongoing conversation that is philosophy itself, and that conversation requires living voices to remain alive.