I do like alignments.
I understand why some don't care for alignments, butb they have a place in game structure. If ones campaign is about killing monsters and all the player-characters are clearly on the same side, alignment can seem like an unecessary restriction on roleplay options. In a world where your fellow soldier next to you might be a flesh-eating doppleganger, having an alignment which may be magically scanned is sort of a necessary game mechanic. If a player is going to use alignment as an excuse to be disruptive, I suspect that player is going to be disruptive in a game with no alignments also.
To me, alignments are all about factions and where the players fit into the central conflict of the metaplot. From a top down view of a DM or a game designer, that's a lot more useful to know than everybody's personal motivations. Nobody gets to not pick a side because alignments are an outdated rules mechanic, not when the army of a Chaos god marches through your village to either recruit you or eat you.
Game designer Ken Hite -- who is strongly against alignments -- was asked about the topic in a podcast once. He recommended this compromise: use only one axis of the D&D alignment chart. In Lord of the Rings, the central conflict is between Good and Evil. In Warhammer, the central conflict is between Chaos and Order. (Sidenote: I'm into then cyberpunk genre right now, and Cyberpunk games also tend to be about Chaos and Order with the good guys being on the side of Chaos.) In both settings, LotR and WF, the second axis of the alignment chart just doesn't get used much.