This is armchair psychology not naturalistic moral philosophy!! The role of anthropomorphism is hugely important and I do not feel that de Waal takes it near serious enough. Shared consciousness seems much too common a similarity. The point is that by reducing or out right disregarding important differences between man and apes, which an understanding of anthropomorphic description is supposed to illuminate, the ape and the man become descriptively (although certainly not in a hereditary or physiological sense) the same thing!!
The bias of a primatologist? I can't help but wonder.