This is a direct example of anthropocentrism. Think about it:
It is not anthropocentrism, how can it be? You seem to assume that because i think that morality matters that my morality is the only morality that matters, or that only human morality matters. I think all morality matters human or not, and that can not possible be anthropocentrism.
How exactly is it a good thing or a bad thing that we live? How exactly is it a good thing or bad thing that we die?
They are either a good thing or a bad thing according to our morality, that is the definition of morality. And we have morality because we chose to, we could be amoral and then nothing can be good or bad, we simply do not have any such opinions. If we have no such opinions our lives would be very grey and lifeless wouldn't you say?
We mean absolutely nothing and that's ok. Morality, good and bad, means absolutely nothing.
Morality means something is good or bad, that is a meaning and the inherent meaning of morality. Of course if we are amoral then it means nothing, but this is a choice we make, either it doesn't mean anything and then nothing matters, or we have a morality and things are either good or bad.
How bad is it for me to be murdered? Not at all because death is not bad. How good is it for me to be born? Not at all because birth is not good. *However these happen, they happen?
From an amoral viewpoint yes, but from an amoral viewpoint going around murdering people and poisoning the enviornment or destroying the balance of the ecosystem or even destroying the univers itself if that is even possible would not be good or bad. The scale is irrelevant.
I can reflect myself in the mirror of Taoism because it has no cosmogony or eschatology.
Daoism has a cosmogeny and even an eschatology in a sense, even though the end existance itself on a grander scale is not really mentioned, it is mentioned that all ten thousand things will all go back to dao again.
*And neither do I. I am agnostic to, and really do not care where I ultimately came from or what I will ultimately become. And I would argue those who do see themselves or their life as something to be treasured rather than to be lost. And just by treasuring we already start to control.
The idea of where we come from and where we will return in daosim is just a way of saying that we are part of this world, and that our lives are just a part of the world as a whole, and that if we view ourself as an inherently existing entity part or separate of this world it must return to the wholeness at it's end. It's a very rationaly an fundamentaly logical conclusion based on our lingusitic constructs around existance and the world.
One does not really need to control by treasuring, not if one treasures without treasuring. And one can control without controling. We must not cling on to this world or our own existance just because we have a moral or because we appreciate existance.
Tao, for me, is not about how to be moral but about how *healthy you survive after you make the choice to continue living. *If I should live why should I live in pain or cause pain in others?
Health is an inherently moral concept, an amoral view of life and existance does not really permit the concept of health since the concept of health is based on our perception of welfare. Pain is also a matter of morality since it is an inherently perceived as a negative experience, if pain is not considered bad then can it really be called pain? So therefore if it is about health and pain it is moral. It can further be infered from this reasoning that it must be subjective, and we can argue that morality is something which exists in other beings aswell as in humans, animals have behaviour that can be called moral, they avoid pain and prefere ceratin actions or situations which could be percieved as good.
Therefore, morality has only to do with health. How healthy one lives depends on how they identify with Tao, how they debias their thoughts and actions.
If morality is only about ones own well-being or wellfare we end up with a very egocentric morality, but if we include humanity as a wholeness it is less egocentric. But a morality that includes all humans is more complex, on can not only regard ones own health, one must reagard others health, and even the implications of the enviornment in which we live, the morality becomes more complex, yet it would be anthropocentric as you brought up and claimed that it would be. But if we include nature or existance in itself as a wholeness then our moraility turns even more complex, our view of ourselves, of society and technology must take in regard other living things, and in fact existance in itself; nature. This in a sense is the very idea of the highest form of virtue or De in daosim i would say.
And just to put this in a Western perspective, look up the etymology for holy. Gives new meaning to the phrase leading a "holy life", no?
Holy doesn't have a clear etymology before it's usage in christian context, and they way it has been used in christian contexts are not really different from how it is used today. But i suspect you refere to it's possible origin in the same root as whole, which when used makes little difference in sense of morality from how it is used today IMHO.