I can value the quality of a service and also care about what my spending helps enable. Usually one principle guides the choice. At a particular boundary, another becomes more important.
Stacked Principles gives me a way to explain that change in priority. It is contextual judgment, with reasons attached. The other commitment has not stopped mattering.
The stack is neither a permanent numerical ranking nor a flat list of values. Scale, consequences, available alternatives and the connection between an action and its effects all matter.
My choice for myself is also different from asking everybody else to make the same choice. A public campaign has different stakes and needs a different evidential basis.
Put it to work
Name the ordinary principle
What would normally guide this decision?
Identify the boundary
What consequence or new evidence makes another commitment decisive?
Give the reason
Why does that priority make sense here, considering scale and alternatives?
Keep the decision revisable
What could change the conclusion, and would you reason similarly in a comparable case?
Where this comes from
Grounded in JJ's own reasoning and an AI-assisted explanation he endorsed. The practical questions are an editorial operationalization, not verbatim quotations or a fixed constitution.
Editorial explanation · AI + JJ