We're getting pretty deep into philosophical territory now, but I disagree. Human rights, to the extent they exist at all, are necessarily inherent properties of individuals.
E.g. If the majority decides people with dark skin are subhuman and therefore have no rights, the majority is most certainly not correct about that, because rights are not defined by the majority opinion. They are inherent.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence put it like this:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I concur with this perspective; rights are inherent and inalienable, and the purpose of democratic government is to secure those rights (which already exist), not to create them.
Only if you believe in a creator that determined these right, which is not rooted in fact, but solely belief.
Personally, I do not believe a particular ethics exist as an absolute/scientific truth. It is just that some amount cooperation is generally better for everyone and virtually all humans want to avoid pain and seek happiness.
Even though I was a convinced utilitarianist when I was young, I think Kant's categorical imperatives are more powerful now: you should act only according to principles you would want everyone to adopt as a universal law. Or Rawls' original position [1].
Even though this might sound like an off-topic philosophical debate, I think it is very relevant to democracy. Purely egoism-based democracy would trample on the rights of minorities, etc. But in a democracy based on these principles, the majority would vote to project minorities, etc.
I am not sure how you would modify democracy to align with this. I think it is for a large part of education. E.g. if everyone thinks every choice is a zero-sum game (my loss is another's win and vise versa), democracy will go in a very dark direction.
What's sad is that there's a formulation that's actually correct. Rights are an inherent property of societies (or stable ones, at least). Note that I'm saying rights in an abstract sense, not necessarily any specific set of rights. Not every society will value the same things the same way.
>E.g. If the majority decides black people are subhuman and therefore have no rights, the majority is most certainly not correct about that, because rights are not defined by the majority opinion.
So it's an objective fact that they're incorrect? I.e. they can be shown to be incorrect without having to ask anyone's opinion? Okay, prove it.
>The U.S. Declaration of Independence put it like this:
That's an opinion. It's perfectly fine to think these things are so obvious they don't need to be justified, but I don't agree that that's true, even if I subjectively hold the same opinion.
The opinion of a few slave owners 250 years ago
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
For a given definition of "men"
> I concur with this perspective
Good for you. You have an opinion, doesn't make it a fact.
Democracy is the most fair way of doing so.