I really think you're gonna need to explain this one.
Sure. From my point of view, there are three types of people as it relates to this argument:
Category 1 is reserved for those who by and large do not care. Non-believers with no interest in anything spiritual.
Category 2 I reserve for most of Christendom. Those who believe that some or all of one of the testaments contain rules and laws by which we must adhere to in order to be saved. While many in this category may believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, they still believe that whether or not they retain the grace they have been given requires a continual striving to keep a law. They judge themselves and all others by the relative success attained in keeping that law.
Category 3 is reserved for those who understand Galatians 5:1 where Paul says "it is for freedom Christ has set us free." The fact that the gospel message has called them to not endure the yoke of slavery to a law system, but has called them to live a life according to the law of love. "How is love best served in this situation?" is the question this person asks. Again, it is not antinomianism or lawlessness: these folks still strongly believe the Psalmist when he says "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." Commandments such as "Do not lie" and "Do not murder" are never ever treated with anything but the utmost respect and would be crossed only in the most extreme situations. Nevertheless, they are not what these folks believe they will be judged according to. They believe they will answer to the law of love: "How is love best served in this situation?" Again, not puppy love, or sentimental love, or sexual love. Rather the "agape" love demonstrated by the cross: love that is in the object's best spiritual interests.
The classic example everyone uses is of course a hypothetical: "would you lie to the gestapo if they asked you if there were Jews hiding in your house?"
Most people would say "Yes, I would lie in that case." A few would say, "No, I would not."
For the few that would say "No, I would not lie in this situation" I would retort are the true unabashed legalists who believe their eternal destiny is indeed tied up in following the law quite literally to a fault. They are related to the priest in the parable of the good samaritan who passes by the samaritan left for dead. Or this person would simply tell the Jews that they had better hide somewhere else and not tell me because I don't want to go to hell lying for you. In fact, it might be argued that in following one law they are breaking another: love thy neighbor. The choice is so stark and so obvious to all that the loving thing to do is to lie in that situation that very few people have a problem with the lie.
However, even for those in category 2 who do admit that lying would be the loving thing to do they arrive at that decision differently than those in category 3. Typically, they arrive at the decision almost through an unwritten casuistry of generally accepted "exceptions to the rule." For most who are sincere believers, they arrive there in an exceptionally honorable fashion. They reason, correctly in my opinion, that because Jesus said the most important two commandments are to love God and love your neighbor, that these in some rare instances outweigh other commandments dealing with lying, stealing, etc.
Category 3 folks arrive a little less arduously. They are not concerned with anything other than "how is love best served in this situation?" No mental gymnastics and energy are spent on determining whether or not will God forgive me for lying, for once it becomes clear how love is best served then the best means to serve that end is employed.