III. History, Science and Morality)

• Carr argues that there are no laws of history, but 'fruitful' hypotheses open the way to further inquiry and fresh understanding. Do that apply in your understanding of history
• each historical event may be unique, but historians make progress by identifying what is general in each unique case; how to explain this apparent paradox?
  
• In the second part of the chapter Carr raises the question of morality and what role the historian ought or ought not to play in judging the public actions of his characters, and more importantly in judging the events, institutions and policies of the past [see p. 72 at the bottom on Hitler and the German people].
• In assessing the morality of some injustice: if the injustice yields a greater good may the historian discount the injustice?? Note p 74, where he writes that historians are tolerant about the human costs [e.g..of the industrial revolution] when society reaps a greater gain: ''nor have I ever heard of a historian who said that in view of the cost, it would have been better to stay the hand of progress and not industrialize".