Very much depends. The samurai were ultimately just a class, with individuals having greatly different opinions based on region and time period. In many ways, the question is like asking "what would an English knight think of today's military".
The idea of the samurai having a specific philosophy throughout time (usually called Bushido although from memory the term is a western invention) comes about from individuals such as Yamamoto Tsunetomo and his excellent (but entirely romantic) Hagakure. The book itself is telling however, as it was written during a period where much of what we associate with the samurai was dying out and is bemoaning the current generation. The book itself is a series of stories, philosophical ponderings and the ponderings of the man when he was old that naturally doesn't really have sources for much of its claims but refers to romanticised stories and heresay. More than this, Yamamoto Tsunetomo himself became a zen monk when he was forbidden to commit suicide on the death of his lord, and zen philosophy extremely coloured his views on the ideal samurai, something which again is bad at reflecting the actual nature of the samurai as depending on region and time period zen (and Soto Zen in particular) was seen as a farmers religion and not suitable for the samurai (which I believe were more likely to practice Shingon Buddhism depending on the period but don't hold me to that).
In short, the " samurai" being of some universal code of conduct and thought is very much a fiction and we can't state what they would have thought on anything. The actual history of the samurai is filled with crazy antics, betrayal, drunken rampages and militarily very divergent tactics. Extra Credits makes a rather funny point when you look at the Sengoku period that much of the "samurai ideal" weirdly applies far better to the Ninja clans who were far more consistent and "honorable".