If you aren't printing your pics, what are you doing with them? Output size and use decides how much resolution and sharpening is needed.
Shooting RAW + JPEGs is a good learning tool, since you are relatively unfamiliar with Lightroom.
First, understand that all DSLRs shoot RAW all the time. And, the RAW is essentially a TIFF with proprietary information added by the camera manufacturer, a bunch of "tags" about white balance, sharpening, contrast, and more, plus an embedded "preview" JPEG (which is what you actually view when you look at the image on the camera's LCD monitor... it can't directly display a RAW image).
When you set the camera to make a JPEG (either just a JPEG, or a JPEG + RAW), the camera is processing the image immediately, according to the guidelines laid out in the Picture Style profile you've selected. The camera throws away all the extra data, that's left over after making that conversion. However, saving RAW + JPEG, it stores both.
As far as the RAWs are concerned, LR ignores the Picture Profile you set in the camera, just shows you the RAW files in all their naked, unprocessed glory. The JPEG, on the other hand, is essentially an in-camera RAW conversion that gives you an idea how the camera handles the "post processing" by some standardized formula (the Picture Styles), what the image might look like. You can experiment with the RAW files in the LR Develop module, compare them to the JPEGs coming from the camera, and when you feel your conversions there are better than what you are seeing out of the camera in the JPEGs, then you can stop shooting RAW + JPEG and just shoot RAW files.
If you are happy with the sharpness of the JPEGs you are getting now, you don't have to do anything. If you'd like them to be sharper or less sharp, you can edit the Standard profile in the camera and increase or decrease how much sharpening is being applied.
As far as the RAW files are concerned, it doesn't matter. The Picture Style profile doesn't do anything to the RAW file, as far as Lightroom is concerned. But when you make a conversion from the RAW, you are going to need to decide how much additional sharpening is needed, depending upon what you are outputting.
The 7D was the first of the 18MP cameras. I think it's possible that Canon dialed up sharpening or dialed back the strength of the AA filter in the later 18MP models (T2i/550D, 60D, T3i/600D and now the T4i/650D). You don't see as many complaints about "soft images" out of those cameras. Of course, it also could be that people using those cameras are more inclined to shoot JPEGs and/or that they less frequently use or see the RAW files. Or, maybe it's because 7D shooters are more likely to have experience with previous models that didn't have such strong AA filters and produced images that didn't need as much sharpening.
Something similar happened when the 5DII came out. It has a stronger AA filter over it's 21MP sensor than the earlier 13MP 5D classic had. In fact, the original 5D has one of the weakest AA filters of any Canon camera. So the impression was that the classic's images were "sharper" and "more detailed". Though really they weren't.
But, it really doesn't matter. The point is that though the 7D images appear "soft" in their RAW form, they actually have a lot of fine detail. It's just a matter of dialing in the sharpness needed to bring it out. How much is needed up to you and what you are planning to do with the image. I would guess-timate I sharpen my 7D images 40% to 80% more than I did 50D images before, on average.
It always comes down to output... how you are using the images. If viewing them on computer only, it's possible that not a lot of sharpening is needed. Typical monitors just don't resolve all that much detail and the best are about 100 pixels per inch. A print on high quality, smooth matte paper - on the other hand - might be able to resolve 170, 240 or even 300 pixels per inch. Some papers even call for over 400 pixels per inch, optimally.
- 
