First, my statement was a hypothetical that shows its fairly obvious in the abstract that just because a group's activity is beneficial to themselves doesn't mean humanity needs to tolerate it, if it's at the expense of everyone else. Hello cartels, carbon emissions, etc.
When it comes to this specific case, the board did not think the mission of "AGI benefiting humanity" warranted shutting the company down. (they believe that being in the lead is better steering than Google / FB / etc.) But they also believed that Sama was sabotaging the safety aspects that would lead to the better steering of AGI for humanity.
The board expected people to have joined OpenAI in support of the mission but Sama sabotaged that with the $1m+ pay packages that meant these people prioritized their personal wealth. The Google founders had talked about how hard it was to ignore financial incentives, a majority of employees were in uproar every time the stock flatlined for too long.
Board's priorities: some group having the best chance of AGI benefiting humanity > Company shutting down > OpenAI makes humanity worse via AGI
The employees should've understand what the OpenAI mission and board's duty was the moment they joined the company. If this wasn't one of the first topics in interviews, then Sam sabotaged the company's mission.