The categorical imperative when doing without the subjective thing, then, does abstraction of the matter, obtaining like corollary that is in the form where a universal legislation can be reached and the form of a law only can be represented by means of pure the practical reason. Although the moral law does without the subjective hunger like cause of its formulation, it has influences in his inclinations nevertheless: in as much limit of the love to itself, that is to say the happiness, it favors the pain. It is in this point where the philosophy of Kant converges with Philosophy in the dressing table : the system of Sade appears like antagonistic to the moral law, basing the legitimacy to give loose rein to all the inclinations in the natural origin of the same, () From the moment in which you decide the right property on the enjoyment, this right is independent of the effects derived from the enjoyment – like thus also they are it the effects derived from the moral law consequently, is indifferent that this enjoyment is advantageous or detrimental to the object that must be put under him. the freedom for Sade is independence of the imperative and its principle turns thus: you do not have other brakes that those of your inclinations, other laws that are not your desires, another moral that is not the one of the nature. The love to itself as principle of the happiness is in the horizon of Sade, inexorably leads which it to the pain. The relation that establishes Lacan between DAS Ding and the law does not compare to one with another one, nor locates either to the thing concerning the pain; the pain is an effect of the proximity of the thing, of the loss of distance. The thing is placed in beyond all regulation established by the law.