I would argue that we are not digressing far off-topic. Talking about how rules in morality and law should be set is a substantial part of the concept púnishment.
So you are saying that people need to be logical within their own ruleset and then you would talk about consistency, is that correct?
I would agree on that I still remember nailing a Steemian on the definition of consensus that he provided himself (climate change debate).
I will write about Kant some time soon. I feel like he is part of the reason we see lawmaking as it is today. Ofc I explained his theory in my biased words pointing out the flaws, he did not say it like that.
I am more than willing to delve into the meta, if you feel so inclined.
I would also agree that such is fundamentally relevant to the discussion even if it did not originate upon this level.
Besides, being 'nailed' on a definition at this level would simply indicate a need for improvement, either in my delivery or of my understanding of the concept. Either way, I could only stand to benefit from the experience. ;c)
I appreciate your clarification that Kant's words were a little different. While words do not always perfectly convey the meaning intended, one's choice of wording remains important nonetheless.