Two neighbours argue about closing a street to traffic on weekends. One says the change will make the area safer; the other says it is unfair to local businesses. They may be disagreeing about several things at once. More forceful repetition will not necessarily reveal which one matters.
Try separating three layers: what is true, what matters and what should be done. This is a practical conversation tool, not a complete theory of moral reasoning. The layers often interact, but distinguishing them can make the next question clearer.
What claim could evidence change?
Ask each person to name a factual expectation. In this illustrative street discussion, that might be a change in traffic volume, delivery access or pedestrian use. Define the period and location. “It will be bad for business” is too broad to investigate without further explanation.
Then ask what evidence would count against the expectation. If no possible observation could change it, the conversation may be about more than a factual forecast. That does not make the concern unimportant; it changes how you should discuss it.
Which priority is doing the work?
People can agree about likely effects and still rank them differently. One may give more weight to quiet public space, another to convenient vehicle access. Naming those priorities avoids presenting a value judgement as though it were a measurement.
Do not assume that a person’s priority is their only concern. Ask how they would describe a reasonable compromise and what they regard as non-negotiable. Listen for constraints that were absent from the first argument.
Is the disagreement about acting now?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discussion of disagreement distinguishes disagreements about belief from disagreements about action. People may share considerable uncertainty yet disagree over whether to wait, experiment or proceed.
For the street example, a limited trial with a review date might answer some factual questions. It would not automatically settle the underlying values, and the trial itself would need a fair process. Treat it as a possible proposal, not a universal solution.
Reflect the disagreement back accurately
A useful summary might be: “We both want safe access. We differ about the likely effect on deliveries and about how much inconvenience is acceptable.” Ask whether that summary is fair before moving to solutions.
You may still disagree at the end. The gain is a better-defined disagreement: one where evidence, priorities and choices are visible. That makes it easier to identify what further information could help, which trade-off needs an explicit decision and where respectful disagreement remains.