Are slippery slope arguments ever non-fallacious? Or, put another way, should we ever find slippery slope arguments persuasive?
Slippery slope arguments generally have the following form. (1)If we allow X, then we will have no principled ground for resisting Y(once you step onto this slope at X, you’ll fall all the way to Y). (2) Y is obviously a bad thing. (3) Therefore, we shouldn’t allow X. So, for example, (1) If we allow physician-assisted suicide, then we’ll have no principled grounds for resisting involuntary euthanasia. (2) Involuntary euthanasia is obviously immoral. (3) Therefore, we ought not to allow physician-assisted suicide. Asyou can see from my example, whether a given slippery-slope argument iscompelling will depend on the plausibility of the first premise in thisargument form.