I am trying to understand the difference between Evaluation and Moral Judgement and how to apply them "metaphysical" facts vs. "man-made" facts.
My understanding of evaluation is that it applys to both metaphysical and man-made facts and that it serves to identify the value of the relevent fact in relation to one's life, identifying whether it furthers or threatens it.
My understanding of Moral Judgement is that it applys to the cause of man-made facts, i.e., one's choice to focus on reality with integration as ones goal (rationality), or to evade reality with ignorance and contradiction as ones cosequence (irrationality). The former deserves moral praise for being a process of life (a process that leads to man-made facts that serve man's life), and the latter deserves moral condemnation for being a process of death (a process that leads to man-made facts that threaten man's life).
Is this explanation correct? Even if it is correct, if someone sees a more precise way of phrasing it, don't hold back.
Follow-up question. I tried to answer these questions on my own by reading what Peikoff had to say about the issue in his essay, Fact and Value In it he states: Wouldn't moral evaluation only apply to the cause and not the effect? Isn't it more precise to say that since the "effects" manifest themselves as man-made facts (either as mental or physical existents), and that facts deserve evaluation, but not moral evaluation? Somewhat related question: Judgement means determining whether an idea is true or false, right?