The author highlights different senses of the Categorical Imperative in ethics, law and politics. These three different interpretations produce moral conflicts among subjects who try to apply the imperative. For instance the legal imperative imposes on the political subject the obligation to observe all laws, and in consequence justifies participation in criminal acts that perpetrated without breaking any binding laws. This clashes with the demands of the ethical imperative. It is also argued that moral justification of all forms of political power by the political imperative generates dubious political imperative of submission to all authorities. It is so because political subjects do not possess the power, according to Kant, to propose politically and morally binding interpretations of the original contract.