Public dialogue about issues that matter most to us, personally, politically, and professionally, often breaks down when people feel vulnerable in the face of others’ decisions. This was especially evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when disagreements over vaccination generated fear, anger, and moral polarization. Vaccine-hesitant individuals were frequently dismissed as irrational or unethical, leaving little room for genuine dialogue or mutual understanding. In this talk, I draw on my own attempt to apply anekāntavāda to debates surrounding vaccine hesitancy to show how this framework encourages epistemic humility, attentiveness to multiple perspectives, and ethical commitment, even when mutual agreement seems impossible. Rather than resolving disagreements by forcing consensus, anekāntavāda helps cultivate the conditions for civil and authentic social dialogue in a way that addresses the concerns that everyone has to keep themselves and their communities safe during emergencies such as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.