I noticed in a recent gay marriage discussion - a special context, as our small and tight-knit denomination decided to remove a church from the rolls for the first time in 134 years over the issue, and our congregation was discussing this in a formal meeting - that the people who were against the measure argued from people, while those in support argued from principle. This applied even to the people who were of divided mind and ambivalent about it, as the statements they shared were from principle when they were acknowledging the separation arguments and about people when they were contemplating the remaining unified options.
This was not 100% the case. There was some appeal to the principles of loving others as Jesus said and being welcoming, yet that still seems strongly in the "people" camp. The idea that we were misreading the scriptures was also offered, noting that homosexuality at the time the NT was being written was a matter of unequal power, of powerful older men having relationships with young men, and this was what Paul was reacting badly against. That is even more an argument from principle, of not adding burdens that the Bible does not require. I have thought about this possibility since I first heard it years ago and ultimately find it unpersuasive and may discuss that at some point. Yet it does qualify as a principle, not as a special pleading for an individual.
I have noticed a similar divide when people discuss abortion, extramarital sex, drug use, and some social sins such as rudeness or anger, which will sometimes be excused because the person "really has a good heart once you know her." It does not extend to other sins that people think are really wrong. No one says "Yes, she's greedy and manipulative but she's such a dear once you get to know her." No one says "Okay, he molests little girls, but he's otherwise a prince of a fellow." We only say this when we think the sin in question is not really, really all that wrong. I will qualify that by noting that we may have come to be more approving of those behaviors because of family or friends.
Carol Gilligan asserted decades ago that this was a difference between male and female morality, that men argued from principle, while women paid more attention to how an abortion or divorce would affect the network around the person. That is the stereotype and a lot of people will claim this Network vs Abstract is indeed a female/male difference, but I don't know it to be true. Gilligan refused to reveal her data, bizarrely citing confidentiality, and I don't believe her results have been replicated by others. I have certainly heard women appeal to principle in the face of loved ones being hurt, and heard men pretty clearly being swayed by the fact that they were talking about a friend or family member. At most, I will grant that a tendency might be there. It is not universal.
My tone and presentation likely telegraph that I am very much on the side of those who choose their morality according to principle, but I want the other lesson to emerge as well. Our principles might have changed if it were our sibling, our friend, or most especially, our child who we were talking about. It's my usual both-sides-now argument: if your principles changed because it was a friend who you considered a "nice person" who was under discussion, perhaps you should not have changed. If you reason from principle but have never been tempted by seeing the conflict play out on the head of your own child, perhaps you should not be so confident you would remain firm in other circumstances. Deep affection tests principles.
Yes, this is background to the issue of disgust as a moral axis.