You say morality is just a workaround for game theoretic processing of strategies for creating plus-sum outcomes. As I've suggested, that "nothing but" judgment isn't itself part of game theory. You're applying a larger philosophical perspective here.

Moreover, it's clear to me that what may originate as a mere workaround can take on a life of its own, generating a new game the outcome of which is determined by higher-order rules. In the case of emergent morality, you would need to show that those rules are either irrelevant or empty or that they reduce to prudential game theory.

So are the philosophical and religious discourses of morality either nonsensical or just roundabout ways of talking about the more fundamental, game theoretic issues? Supporting an affirmative answer would be a tall order.