Locke’s purpose in examining the “state of Nature”is A) To show how primitive human beings lived before they formed societies.
B)To determine the natural rights of human being and, thereby, the legitimate extent of political power.
C)To show that all governments represents at least marginal improvements to the state of nature.
D)To show why the state of nature is inadequate for determining what our fundamental rights should be.
E)To show the rights to property obtains in the state of nature but not in civil society.

D)To show why the state of nature is inadequate for determining what our fundamental rights should be.

Explanation:

John Locke, an English philosopher, widely referred to as Father of Liberalism, examines the "State of Nature" for the purpose of showing why the state of nature is inadequate for determining what our fundamental rights should be.

According to him, each individual in a society has a natural right to protect his or her own life, liberty, and property and at the same time, each individual has a natural right to seek for compensation for any wrongful injury to his or her natural rights; life, liberty, or property which has been inflicted by other individuals.

However, Locke, believed that, since 'state of nature' is more or less a state of insecurity, that is, each individual is not secured to possible infringement of his or her natural rights by other individuals. Hence, the needs to create a civil government, whose purpose is to protect the natural rights, freedom and well-being of all members of society.

This is because, in a "state of nature" there is no legislative or judicial authority that members of the society can seek for help in order to protect their natural rights, such as lives, liberty, or property. But to ensure there is security and protection to individuals natural right, there is need for a civil government, with a judicial authority whose purpose is to resolve disputes fairly and equitably.

1. should those convicted of violating laws be labeled?

-yes, because they are violating other people's human rights, so why should they get their's and other's don't?

2. do you feel that this labeling would be an infringement on a person's rights?

-yes it does technically but they lose the right to be human when they rap.e people of everything they have.

their just depressed and think that if they give pain to some one else the pain goes away from them. which it doesn't.