What is Necessity

In The Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer, the author make the argument that any money not spent on necessities should be donated. While Singer's argument is compelling and guilt-inducing for those who have failed to see the irony of their so-called "values" and morals," I take issue with one specific word: necessity. Singer's argument contends that because there is a huge disparity between those living with a surplus of luxuries and those who cannot afford such basic amenities as clean water, those with "extra" should give until they cannot. However, what, exactly, is "necessity." In a county that is characterized by its excessive monetary focus and its reputation for self-absorption, how can a person identify what is need and what is want? Where do you draw the line between frivolous and required?

The primary example that comes to mind is mental health. In the past two years, 59 million Americans have sought some form of treatment for psychological health and invested over $200 billion in treating mental health conditions.  Psychiatric health does not make up one of the tiers necessary to life: food, shelter, water, or air. However, for the millions who are suffering from mental health conditions, the results of going without aid could be just as fatal. Would Singer say that Americans should forgo medication and treatment for mental health conditions? Would he argue that because many other communities don't have access to such a luxury, those who do have it shouldn't pursue it either?

Another example that comes to mind is education- whether it be the hefty price tag of private schools to the astronomical costs of preschool childcare. Again, education does not fall under the category of water, food, shelter, or air, but it is what ultimately propels innovation. Without education, society would stagnate. If a parent has the choice to send their child to a school with mediocre teachers and a poor curriculum but chooses instead to send them to the expensive academy with the Ph.D. professors and the brand new textbooks- are they being frivolous?

I do not personally know how I feel about these sentiments- I am indecisive as to whether Singer is implying that things such as mental health and education are indulgences, and I am even more indecisive as to whether I believe if it is true or not. I see arguments for both sides, but I wanted to play the devil's advocate and hear the opinions of my fellow peers on the subjective opinion of "necessity."