The transversality effect for mutually incompatible social theories is that of non-exclusivity. Competing theories continue to exist and the elements of choice between theories are determined by practice, convenience and economies, and not necessarily by idealistic goals. Because Teubner does not propose any specific quality standards or quality control elements for a theory to qualify within a circle of competing theories, transversality can become, superficially, an instrument for human rights conceptualisation, whereby the quest for idealistic and practice-independent justification is lost. On further inspection, we can construe an argument that the loss of the quest towards idealism depends on how we understand the term idealism. Giving up the grand idea of human rights superiority, and accepting multiple readings of what human rights mean, leads to the extreme principle of anything goes within the meaning of Paul Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism.