Note that grading hard is basically friction in the system that is fairly efficient to avoid.
The elite schools have plenty of smart and hard-working students who don't need hard grading as a motivator to do great work. Those students are the backbone of your school.
1. How does one define the "wrong thing"? Genuine question.
2. What about soft grading makes it a scam? Since letter grades are distinctly not criterion referenced, I struggle to see a strong justification for this claim. Please help me understand.
3. What makes you think that anyone in the system wants it changed? I humbly suggest that very few people actually do -- the current system is super-low friction and allows professors to work on the things that they are actually evaluated on.
It's surely a breach of ethics to evaluate someone's work and report that they did better than you concluded they did for convenience. I'd call that ethical breach "the wrong thing."
OP said to think twice about "honest grading" so I think dishonest grading is the problem with what you are calling "soft grading."
I don't think anyone inside wants it changed, I don't think anyone ever does when a broken system benefits them more than those outside. That's why it was in quotes.
Am I not allowed to call out obviously unethical behavior without offering myself as tribute to correct it?
If I call you out for littering do I have to clean the whole planet?
Sorry this feels bad man, I don't think you are a dirtbag but I think you did a bad thing. Done plenty myself, my crosses to bear, but always turned out better when called out for it.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote but giving higher grades because it's more convenient than doing the right thing is... the wrong thing.
Painful that at some point it felt like your (and many others') best choice but it was still wrong flat out.
Hey maybe now you can "change the system from the inside!"