What I mean is, do you essentially picture your vision of an ideal society, and then work backwards and ask what rules or principles would be necessary to make that the outcome? Or do you imagine your ideas of right and wrong, the role of government, the role of social norms, etc first, and then 'press play' on them in a sense, and see what society comes out and just accept the result as the byproduct of those principles?
Are right and wrong, the role of the State, the role of cultures, the responsibilities of the individual, and so on ideas you can imagine in their ideal form in abstract, independent from any specific implementation, or are they tools one uses to get the outcome they want, and if they do not achieve that outcome, you change or modify the tools so that you do get the outcome you want?
Outcomes are the principles, if you truly held those principles then you would want whatever leads to supporting best them in the long run. So I guess "outcomes first", but only in so much as I think "principles first" doesn't exist and is just LARPing.
For example I find lying for personal gain abhorrent, but if I had to put on some bullshit to trap a fraudster in their own BS, I'll do it and I'd have no issue with anyone else doing it either. One or two lies to get rid of a serial parasitic liar are a net good, and fuck anyone who says it isn't worth it.
If you have confidence in your judgement and your own moral character, then do what you believe is right instead of fearing what you're told is wrong. If you know yourself and know even a quick glance at the abyss might turn you into a monster, then maybe hold back and just try not to stand in the way of better men.
Principles are motivation, outcomes are actions (what you do about your beliefs).
You might support the death penalty for vengeance, or deterrence, or proportionality (eye for eye), or to not waste money. Different principle, same outcome.
The OP question doesn't really make sense because they're two separate dials.
For example, Jack Bauer in 24 (2001) is maybe the most principled character ever depicted on screen, his principle dial is at 10 but his outcome dial is also at 10 so he's doing shit that violates his principles in every scene.
Whereas Dalai Lama is 10 principle and 1 outcome. Far-left terrorists are 1 principle (hypocritical beliefs) and 10 outcome.
I just struggle to believe anyone can be truly motivated without it leading to any action, even if that action is just constantly trying to plan a way out.
Hence fighting for the right outcome is the only proof of belief in the principles I actually put stock in. And why I felt zero surprise when the Dali Lama turned out be telling little boys to suck his tongue behind closed doors.
For example, an attempted mugging by a soyboy.
If you very much believe in nonviolence you could immediately hand over your wallet, or you could kill the mugger preventing future violence. Both are evidence of strongly held principles, differing only in how much you want the world to conform to them.
In my case I just said "no" and kept walking. I didn't have that extreme view or the strong desire to fix the problem.