Variable [B]: Game Theories

 This variable can be measured by accounting for the types of game theories that can be possible in a given context, the consequences of the possible dicision makers, and the alignment of nash equilibriums with the stability of modules in variable A and the low cost of loss in variable C. The following are examples of game theories with some moral relevance.

Conflict games. (cells to nations, any system that can make decisions)

In contests of strategy, as opposed to contests of skill, strength or intellect; in contests where two or more players have partly conflicting and partly shared interests, the winning strategies tend to include a self handicapping to make threats and promises credible. Read Schelling's "The Strategy of Conflict" 

Tragedy of the Commons. (communities)

Commons like public water fountains, restrooms, parks, are services provided by governments as a public reward. Their survival is dependent on the restraint of players and the perceived availability of the resource. Upkeep of these commons rely on constant maintenance and regulation from policies to prevent exploitation. Users might think that if they don't use a resource, they won't get a chance to use it as other users exploit it, causing more users to exploit the resource in expectation of scarcity. Resolution requires enforced restriction of use of the resource by an authority and a government's willingness to make the resource plentiful.

Rental Markets. (bodies to communities)

Tenants want the best apartments, landlords want the best renters. Tenants may decorate the apartment, landlords may paint the walls the tenant's favorite color. A negotiation tactic is for the landlord to limit their freedom to evict, and for the tenant to limit their freedom to leave, by signing a contract. This restriction benefits both.  The same game and type restrictions can be applied marriages.

Parent/Offspring conflict. (families)

Children share 50% genes with their parents and siblings, but they share 100% of their genes with their selves. This would mean that the kid's selfish genes would wire their brains to prefer circumstances that benefit themselves to twice the degree first before their siblings/parents. Familial interests diverge.  

Fair/Free/Equal tradeoffs. (communities to nations)

In societies that are fair, people that work more will earn more. In societies that are free, people will give their money to their offspring. but then a society cannot be equal for some children will inherit money they did not earn.
Depending on which tradeoff is given up or endorsed, will determine the type of society that takes shape. 

Weakness of the will. (mental organs, bodies and families)

People act like they have two selves, one that adores tabaco and another that wants a healthy body. One that wants desert and another that wants to be fit. One self has a logical distant view of the future, another has an impulsive view of the present. As a reward draws near, the self switches from preferring the distant reward to the short term reward. These two selves can form part of a game, when the distant view self is in control, they can throw away the brownies at an opportune time to limit the choices of the short term self. 

Strategies of war: Art of War vs Powell Doctrine (nations, autocratic vs democratic war waging) 

Different types of regimes will adhere to different rules because of their different shapes of government according to selectorate theory.
Dictatorships, with small coalitions will choose private rewards and resource extraction to enrich their small coalition, regardless of how badly this affects those not in the small coalition. Consistent with the art of war.
Democracies with large coalitions will choose foreign public policies that benefit the most of their own citizens, primarily because a large section of their own citizens form part of the winning coalition. Consistent with the Powell Doctrine.