The consequences of such relations are thought to be entirely positive and include a system of justice, increased emphasis on morality and an illumination of the path to the good life.
That man is by nature a political animal means in a minimum sense that relationships are necessary to human-kind as well as being desired. Man is not a self-sufficient being and, in line with Aristotle's teleology needs to join a self-sufficient entity. Thus an association of master and slave is "established according to nature for the satisfaction of daily needs" and an association of husband and wife to "propagate one's kind" and at this point daily needs have been satisfied. However, man is not whole, complete or perfect even when such needs are satisfied and so the village and finally, the state are formed. "The state came about as a means of securing life itself, it continues in being to secure the good life" and it is in the role of securing the good life that the state enables man to be truly complete. The gift of speech enabling men to indicate "what is just and what is unjust" coupled with the inclination towards dialogue of such a nature is, perhaps the basis of the state. Furthermore, humanity does not exist outside of the state, it is the state that provides the forum for discussion, that gives the opportunity for interaction with others and gives "humanity" its humanity. That man is by nature a political animal now means something more; that man is the only political animal in that he alone can discern justice and can appreciate and maneuver towards the good.
However, with such a definition of a political animal a conundrum arises that can only be solved by Aristotle's teleology. Man needs to be a political animal to engage in the state but there needs to be a state for man to be a political animal.