TheGeneralIsTheEnemyOfTheParticular

Just as TheBestIsTheEnemyOfTheGood, so the general is the event of the particular.

It would be great if principles didn't have a party. That they treated all equally and naturally.

But in the messy empirical reality we're are all thrown into, de facto, principles do favour one party or the other.

Firstly, they never can or will be applied equally, and all practical appeals to principle will (correctly) be accused of holding people to double standards.

Second, they'll never be considered in a situation where there isn't a power imbalance, and where the application of the principle isn't being used by one side to try to change their relative powers.

Thirdly, following local rules is something we largely support only because we feel it supports our longer term / broader notions of justice or "the good".

That sounds cynical, but is a deontic commitment to principles without any beliefs at all about the outcome of those beliefs actually plausible? Why those principles of you are neutral about their outcome?

But if not plausible, we are largely in a debate between different balances between long term ideals and shorter term commitment to principles.