I disagree. The miners are the network. It has always been the case that the ability to influence the miners is equivalent to the ability to manipulate the network however you please. This isn't a new property of the system.

The miners choosing to do this or not to do this changes nothing about the fundamental security assumptions of Ethereum. Even if they choose not to fork, that doesn't mean that they couldn't choose to do so in the future for some other case. So i'm not really sure what it is that's being lost if they choose to do so now.

There's an assumption with these systems that the miners value the integrity of the system, whether out of idealism or just because they're invested in it, so you'll never have most of them try to subvert it.

If they roll this back, that will show that this assumption is wrong. They are not sufficiently invested or sufficiently idealistic to preserve the system. At least half of them value expediency instead.

Technologically it changes nothing, but it totally alters the human element.

Idealists will get wiped if they don't agree with majority consensus. It was always a human system and "the code is the network" is just ideology.

It is ultimately a human system, but human systems can include an element of rule based order. Humans can decide to have one process for making the rules and different one for enforcing/honoring the rules.

So the best way to proceed, in my view, is to honor the current version of the contract (which equals the current version of the code including the "exploit") and then change the rules/code so that the same thing cannot happen again in the future.

The miners are not the network; the expectation of market reaction is the network and the miners make their choice just like everyone else. Miners don't want to be on the wrong chain.