If it brings benefit it is good, if it brings harm, it is bad. A person's moral duty is to maximize net benefit and minimize net harm to them. Ethical egoists would argue that people are naturally inclined to act on their own self-interest, so the theory doesn't require a person to make a drastic change in the way they live their life. It is based on rationality, so a person doesn't have to make a "leap of faith" into ethical egoism. A person just has to embrace their selfishness and make decisions based on rational thinking. .
And ethical egoism is based on people acting on their own self-interest. Then everyone should be in favor of being an ethical egoist and acting according to their own self-interest.
When a person is confronted with a dilemma they are naturally inclined to determine which action to take according to what will benefit them the most. For example, when a person is faced with the dilemma of getting up and going to work in the morning. The person chooses to get up and got to work because it will benefit them financially, because they have bills to pay. And because they wouldn't want to look bad in front of their bosses or worse lose their job. .
A moral dilemma is something that will cause benefit or harm to that individual. An egoist would argue that every person has an equal right to pursue what benefits them and people shouldn't be devalued to serve other people. This puts the individual first, and gives the individual self-confidence. The theory shows respect for the individual. It takes into consideration that the individuals are the best judge for their own wants and needs.
But this doesn't mean ethical egoist's are not in favor of doing things for others, because helping somebody can be in the individuals self interest. Since everyone has the equal right to pursue net benefit for themselves. And loaning someone money to fix a problem they are having with their car will benefit the individual because they are that individual's ride to work.