Australia's recent bushfire disaster has prompted discussion about political leadership and the country's response to climate change.

But political conversations can be flashpoints for many of us, especially if we're talking to friends, colleagues or partners who might not see things the same way. Is there a way to navigate these potentially explosive discussions without damaging relationships?

In the run up to last year's federal election ABC Life's resident ethicist Matt Beard tackled this thorny question. Let's get into it!

How do I talk to my colleagues and friends about political issues I care about without damaging our relationship?

Dear Matt,

The election's coming up, and I'm feeling really fired up about a few issues… not all my colleagues and family members agree with my views, though.

I want to talk through the issues with them and see if I can convince them, but I'm worried about it impacting our relationship. Any advice?

— Ruben

Dr Beard's response

Dr Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher and ethicist. ( Supplied )

There was a time when the only advice you'd get on a question like this was "don't discuss politics in polite company".

Fortunately, for most of us, the notion that important topics shouldn't be talked about in social circles has been put in the bin, where it belongs.

For one thing, if we can't discuss important topics in social settings, we're stuck talking about the weather and what people do for a living which is, with no disrespect to your job, bloody boring.

But more importantly, demanding silence on topics about which we disagree is morally problematic for a couple of reasons.

The privilege of not caring

First, not everyone has the luxury of being silent about politics — it's only those who are at a safe distance from major policy decisions who can afford to stay silent. Plus, it means we're doing nothing to change the world for the better.

If we choose not to speak out for a disadvantaged group, we're basically choosing our own social comfort over the basic needs of our fellow citizens.

What's more, "keeping the peace" by leaving politics off the table is dishonest. It favours the appearance of agreement and harmony, even if under the surface is unresolved conflict, tension and even violence.

It's not a huge stretch to say that some of the violence and aggression we see today is an example of those underlying, unaddressed tensions spilling over into our day-to-day lives.

Our relationships should be able to withstand tough conversations

It's also dishonest because it assumes that relationships can't survive serious disagreements, which is plainly untrue. While disagreements in relationships can be challenging, they're also entirely normal and manageable.

From an ethical perspective, they can be desirable — disagreement can be a chance for each person to come to a fuller understanding of what's right and what's not. But you give yourself the best chance of success by taking a few basic steps.

The first thing to do is engage in the discussion with a spirit of charity

Remind yourself that the people you're talking to are most likely thoughtful people who have good reasons for thinking the way they do.

That way, you're less likely to alienate them by treating them as idiots, scumbags or students.

A good test to see if you're doing this well is to aim first to understand and then to persuade. Try to repeat the other person's position back to them to make sure you know what they mean before diving into your own point of view.

Philosophers who take a relational approach to ethics often talk about the importance of granting everyone in the relationship a voice.

Part of being valued in a relationship means being heard and having people who care about what you've got to say.

Hearing people out is as important as 'winning' an argument

You may want to meditate on this point because, as you've said, you're in this conversation to "win" it. You want to change their minds.

I'd suggest you be careful of doing this too much — it can leave people feeling used.

Listen to Short and Curly Hear more from the fast-paced fun-filled ethics podcast for kids and their parents with questions and ideas to really get you thinking. Read more Read more

If your sole intention is to change their mind in order to change their vote, people might feel like you're manipulating your relationship with them, which isn't going to leave them feeling open to what you've got to say.

These steps help ensure that both people are open to hearing and understanding what the other person might have to offer, instead of nodding along while waiting for their turn to speak.

But once you've set the scene for a meaningful conversation, you've got to actually say something. And it's worth thinking about both what you say and how you say it.

When in doubt, go back to Aristotle

About 2,500 years ago, Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, which you could say is the first high-school debating handbook. It outlines three components of a persuasive argument: logos (reason), ethos (character) and pathos (feeling).

You've got to make a reasonable argument, so make sure you've got your facts straight. What are the issues you're concerned about? Do you understand them clearly? Many a passionate advocate has had their argument fall apart before it's even begun because their passion outstripped their understanding

Don't be that person — do your research.

Second, you need to be seen as someone who has some credibility on the issue. If you're furious about climate policies, but you're rocking into work with a disposable coffee cup every morning, people may be less likely to hear what you've got to say.

By contrast, if you're someone people admire and whose views they respect, you're more likely to get some headway in the conversation.

Finally, you have to give people reasons to give a shit. That's what Aristotle calls pathos.

Now, you might argue that everyone should care about certain issues — but that's another discussion. If you're interested in changing minds, you need to express yourself in ways people connect with.

One effective strategy is to appeal to people's curiosity: tell them something they didn't know about something they already care about.

For instance, after the San Bernardino terrorist attack in the United States in 2015, Barack Obama told Americans: "Muslim Americans are our friends and our neighbours, our co-workers, our sports heroes — and, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defence of our country. We have to remember that."

As a result, there was a spike in Google searches for 'Muslim athlete' and 'Muslim soldier'. This remark changed the narrative by associating something people take pride in with something they were more hesitant about. It was a powerful example of pathos at work.

ABC Life in your inbox Get our newsletter for the best of ABC Life each week Your information is handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement Email address Subscribe

Some friendships might not survive 'agree to disagree'

Finally, you need to work out what to do if you're unsuccessful. Can you continue to have a relationship with someone if they won't change their mind about this issue?

There are some issues where it might be morally wrong to "agree to disagree". Sometimes, you might be required to take some action, even if that action is to end the friendship.

But don't take this too far. We're in a time where it's encouraged to politicise everything, and turn all political disagreements into personal battles. The political and personal are related, but it's not an all-or-nothing game.

The late US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, was close friends with fellow judge and progressive champion Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. They disagreed on almost every matter of political importance but remained friends thanks to a shared love of opera.

I'm not sure exactly what the lesson there is, but it's worth seeing it as an example of how disagreement done well doesn't need to be the death knell for relationships. Good luck!

Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher, ethicist, author, presenter of the ABC's Short & Curly and a Fellow at The Ethics Centre.