does morality have siblings?

I've been reading a book titled Philosophical Issues in Journalism in which an article by Stephen H. Daniel raised some questions in my mind. I've always been an old-school thinker, more inclined to view things in black and white. As a member (though not advocate) of this often morally ambiguous generation, I am often challenged in my committment to right and wrong. But I love this...I'm the first to admit that life is more complex than some of my convictions initially assume, but I feel open-mindedness as well as the ability to listen to others, is far too infrequent among people of my particular moral persuasion. It is my humble desire to be someone who listens, not necessarily because I agree, but because I care enough to gain their perspective and challenge my own ideas. Anything less is arrogant and results in untested convictions; the day we think we're always right no matter what is the day we should cease thinking altogether.

In Daniel's article, Some Conflicting Assumptions of Journalistic Ethics, he distinguishes between "personal and social duties" or "the standards of journalistic excellence and general morality." In other words, Daniel is claiming that because of a journalist's calling to present the public with fact, he is subject to a different set of morals than others. Daniels mentions two moralities, a personal one and a professional one. According to him, these two should not bleed together or affect each other.

I have to question this sort of relativism. In essence Daniel is stating that there are in fact two separate moralities; one that applies to one's personal life, and one that affects one's professional life. But these two moralities which Daniel suggests are at odds with each other.

The problem I see in Daniel's thinking has to do with where he derives his standard of morality. According to his standard, morality is dependent on the situation, and whatever it requires. For instance, since a journalist will more likely find himself in need of invading someone's personal privacy to do his job, it is therefore alright for the journalist to do so. The danger in selective morality is that anyone could find a reason to justify an action, as long as he had a substantial reason.

There has to be a standard of morality outside of ourselves, that leads the way for our corrupt hearts to follow. Otherwise our wicked intentions would crumble us from the inside out.

Morality should be a filter through which our thoughts and actions pass through. Not a chameleon that shifts depending on our environment. Why would we desire one morality for our close friends and family, only to adapt to an entirely different one when we reach the office?

Does morality have countless brothers and sisters running around? I would suggest that it does not.