Moralistic issues are appeals to consequents.

You’re right in stating that they are somewhat similar but there’s still an important difference. Let me give an example:

"Warfare is destructive and tragic, and so it is not of human nature."

This is an example of the moralistic fallacy. It assumes that because something is ought or not ought to do, then it is a part or not a part of nature, respectively.

Now for the appeal to consequences:

“If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, that would mean we have no hope. It’s so bad to not have hope! Therefore Jesus must have rose from the dead.”

It assumes that because a certain proposition leads to undesired results, it must be false.

I think you can see the difference here.

They're similar, but one deals with observable consequences of a proposition (appeal to consequences) and the other deals with an abstract moral value (moralistic fallacy).

Moralistic fallacy:

P) War is morally wrong.

Implicit P) If something is morally wrong, it cannot be part of human nature.

C) Therefore, war cannot be part of human nature.

Here, the first premise is a moral principle, and the conclusion is a factual statement.

Appeal to consequences

P) If my country is at war, then people will die.

P2) People dying is bad.

C) Therefore, my country cannot be at war.

Here, both the first premise and conclusion express some sort of 'fact', with the moral judgement being in the middle.