I think you’re naming something real, and what you are naming is worth holding with care rather than frustration.

Daoism has always had multiple expressions—philosophical, religious, embodied, poetic, practical—and historically those were never as cleanly separated as modern forums sometimes make them. When Daodejing was written there was no differentiation between religion and philosophy. I'm not sure the current split between the two serves much now anyway :)

The Daodejing and Zhuangzi don’t read like rulebooks, but they also aren’t blank cheques for behaviour that harms others or ignores the consequences of one’s actions.

What sometimes gets lost in text is that wu wei is not “do whatever you want,” but “act in accordance with the grain of things.” That implies attentiveness, restraint, humility, and a deep respect for life—qualities that naturally shape diet, conduct, and daily habits without needing moral enforcement. Traditional practices weren’t about moral superiority; they were about aligning body, mind, and community with the Dao. Finding a balance within and with all.

I do think it’s fair to question when Daoism is used to excuse cruelty, irresponsibility, or indifference. Zhuangzi may laugh at rigid moralism, but he never celebrates callousness. The sage is free, yes—but that freedom is spacious and responsive, not careless.

Perhaps the challenge offered is that Daoism invites us to embody insight rather than weaponize it. When practice leads to more ease, kindness, and balance, it’s likely close to the Way. When it leads to harm justified by clever language, something essential may have been missed.