Three somewhat disconnected responses —

For a moral realist, moral disagreements are factual disagreements.

I'm not sure that humans can actually have radically different terminal values from one another; but then, I'm also not sure that humans have terminal values.

It seems to me that "deontologist" and "consequentialist" refer to humans who happen to have noticed different sorts of patterns in their own moral responses — not groups of humans that have fundamentally different values written down in their source code somewhere. ("Moral responses" are things like approving, disapproving, praising, punishing, feeling pride or guilt, and so on. They are adaptations being executed, not optimized reflections of fundamental values.)